Egyptian Anarchist Movement Emerges with Wave of Firebombings and Street Fight
24 January, 2013 – Info Shop – Ryan Harvey – Even If Your Voice Shakes

Anarchists have been present in Egypt before, during, and after the revolution, but until today, they have yet to organize a mass grouping under the banner of anarchism. The Ultras of Egypt’s football clubs have for years been associated with anarchist ideas and actions, and they are widely credited with having initiated the level militancy that brought down the Mubarak government in February of 2011.

Last night, anarchism left the graffitied walls, small conversations, and online forums of Egypt, and came to life in Cairo, declaring itself a new force in the ongoing social revolution sparked two years ago with multiple firebombings against Muslim Brotherhood offices. Later, the government shutdown the “Black Blocairo” and “Egyptian Black Bloc” Facebook pages, but they were soon re-launched.

“Wait for our next attacks as we respond to the closing of our official page…” they posted in a statement posted online this morning (translated below).

Today, the black bloc made its first mass-appearance in Tahrir Square, and, shortly after, firebombed the Shura Council (Egyptian Parliament), tore down a section of the protest-barrier walls leading from Tahrir Square, and, with others, engaged in fighting against security forces.

These statements and actions are in preparation for tomorrow’s second anniversary of the revolution, and for what some are calling “a whole new level” or protest in Egypt.

Anarchism and the black bloc concept has grown in recent months across Egypt, Stemming from various anarchist grouping/circles that coalesced during the revolutionary period. A massive distrust among the youth of all political parties, a sharp critique of the role of religion within governance, and the inspiration of anarchist resistance around the world (largely symbolized by the late-2008 revolt in Greece) have helped it catalyze. …more

Chiapas: release of new communique by the EZLN hours before the arrival or Enrique Peña Nieto to lands under its influence
20 January, 2013 – SIPAZ

On 20 January, there was published the first part of a new message signed by Subcomandante Marcos entitled “Them and Us: The (lack of) Reason among those from Above.” The communique is written as a parody, from the perspective of those who speak “from above.” It asserts among other things that “We are those who command. We are the most powerful, although we be few in number. It does not matter to us what you do-think-hear-or say, just as long as you are deaf, mute, and stationary. We can impose a government onto somewhat intelligent people (although these are difficult to find in the political class), but we select one who cannot even pretend to know what is going on. Why? Because we can […]. We can use the police and the military apparatus to persecute and incarcerate various criminals, but these criminals are a vital part of our operations. In exchange we can choose to persecute you, beat you, arrest you, torture you, imprison you, and kill you.”

The powerful are said to affirm that “what truly is a danger, a veritable chaos, is when whoever makes herself into a collective, ground, band, race, or organization, and then come to learn how to say ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ and that these come to agreement among themselves. Because this ‘no’ has to do with those like us who command. And this ‘yes’… Well, this is a calamity; imagine that each person construct her own destiny, deciding what she will be and do. This would be like claiming that we are superfluous–that we are the ones who are left over, the ones who are not necessary, the ones who should be incarcerated, the ones who should disappear.”

It should be mentioned that the communique was released a few hours before the arrival of President Enrique Peña Nieto to Chiapas to present the National Crusade against Hunger in the Las Margaritas municipality. This crusade has as its budget close to 4 billion pesos, and it seeks to be deployed in some 400 municipalities with the highest indexes of social marginalization. Notably, Las Margaritas is one of the poorest municipalities in the country; it is considered to be a Zapatista bastion, being one of the cities that were taken peacefully by the EZLN on 21 December 2012. …more

Hillary Clinton on Benghazi: ‘Arab Spring shattered security in region’
23 January, 2013 – UK Telegraph

Hillary Clinton said the Arab Spring “shattered” security in North Africa, pointing to instability in Mali and Algeria, as she was finally grilled on the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

In an emotional appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mrs Clinton cast the incident, the first in which a US ambassador was killed since 1988, as part of a long history of such violence as well as the result of regional instability since the Arab Spring of popular revolutions began in 2011.

Speaking in congressional testimony delayed by more than a month because of her ill health, Mrs Clinton offered her first detailed accounting of the first days after the attack, saying she directed the US response from the State Department.

“I take responsibility,” Mrs Clinton said, echoing comments she first made in October and stressing that she has accepted all of the recommendations of an independent review panel that ultimately held lower-level officials responsible.

“Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure,” she added.

She cited the recent assault on a gas complex in Algeria as an example of the “increasingly complex threats” in the region.

“Benghazi didn’t happen in a vacuum,” Mrs Clinton said at the start of the hearing. “The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region.”

Why The US And Its Allies Wanted Gaddafi Dead And What Are The Lessons For Future?
Sako Sefiani – 23 January, 2013 – iranian.com

There were 3 major objectives the West pursued from the war on Libya:

1) to gain control of its vast oil reserves for Western companies,

2) to take control of and manipulate the democracy movement to direct it towards meeting their own strategic interests rather than the movement’s, by arming, financing, supporting and finally putting in power their own loyalists (when the regime was forecasted to fall soon, US and European officials met with their “rebels” whom they had selected among the opposition to arm and finance, to form the replacement government), and

3) to undermine and thwart Gaddafi’s efforts at unifying the African nations with anti-colonial predisposition which tended to put regional differences aside and put Africa first. This was analogous to what Chavez has done in Latin America.

Gaddafi might have been many things: narcissistic, egomaniac, dictator and maybe even as crazy and out of control as the media made him out to be, as the Pentagon was preparing for military attack on his country, but what bothered imperialist policy makers in US and their allies in Europe the most was that he refused to take orders from them or put the interests of imperialism above those of African people, and more significantly, as reported in June 14, 2012 issue of The Guardian, he tried to unite the continent to form a “United States of Africa”, with a single currency, military, and economy to stand up to colonial powers which plundered the continent for hundreds of years and left it impoverished.

And it should be noted that the proposition for unifying the continent was not from a resource-poor country trying to share in others’ resources – Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, which surely was not lost on imperialism. Uniting the continent, or even working and taking steps towards it, would have enormous and far reaching consequences for Africans, and especially imperialists, as it would take away the latter’s ability to divide, conquer and rule, and that had to be in the minds of Western policy makers as they pondered his faith.

The imperialists’ play book must have in big bold letters the simple lesson: “unity is bad, division is good”. This is especially pertinent in Africa where there are Arab nations in the North and non-Arab blacks in the South. This distinction came to fore after the fall of the Gaddafi regime when US-backed rebels began targeting and persecuting the nation’s blacks.

And Gaddafi was not just words when it came to developing the continent and fostering unity. As was reported in the above-mentioned issue of The Guardian, he was instrumental in creating the African Union in 2002 and was its biggest financial contributor. He also made investments in infrastructure and other projects within a variety of poor African countries to the tune of over $150 billon.

A figure such as him, regardless of what one might think of him as a person or ruler, does not fit in imperialists’ plans for dominating and plundering the continent. The US and its European allies want the continent’s vast supply of cheap labor and natural resources, most notably oil, which is possible through pro-West puppets easily manipulated into division and fighting their brethren rather than standing up to foreign corporations and their governments.

As the Guardian observed: the significance of the war on Libya was not so much in overthrowing Gaddafi, as was in eliminating “the fiercest adversary” of US plans for future military operations in the continent which we began to see shortly after his murder in the hands of pro-US “rebels”. The Guardian adds:

“It is no coincidence that within months of the fall of Tripoli – and in the same month as Gaddafi’s execution – President Obama announced the deployment of 100 US special forces to four different African countries, including Uganda” and Somalia.

“Fourteen major joint military exercises between Africom [Africa Command of US military] and African states are also due to take place this year; and a recent press release from the Africa Partnership Station – Africom’s naval training programme – explained that 2013’s operations will be moving ’away from a training-intensive program’ and into the field of ’real-world operations’. This is a far cry from the Africa of 2007, which refused to allow Africom a base on African soil”.

Thus, Gaddafi’s overthrow eliminated an adversary to imperialists’ plans in Africa and opened the continent to more military interventions for control of resources, cheap labor, markets and an opportunity for further military operations for total hegemony over the continent. …more

Despite the fact that “it was Barack Obama who began the current austerity offensive in the weeks before delivering his first inaugural address,” the president was allowed to pose as a champion of the social safety net. Having redefined war, he once again claims to be a peacemaker. “By cheering the inaugural speech, progressives are only encouraging Obama’s gaming and mendacity.”

The White House Un-Reality Show
by Glen Ford – 23 January, 2013 – Black Agenda Report

“He merely peppered the speech with progressive buzzwords and references – just enough notes to get the faithful to fill in the empty spaces with their own internal music.”

Like an abusive spouse who preys on the emotional desperation and dependency of his domestic victim, Barack Obama knows that all he need do is offer some cheap street corner flowers and a few sweet words, and the previous nights and months and years of beatings will be forgiven. Just hum a bar or two of an old, shared song, and the battered partner will supply a full symphony of Barry White’s Love Unlimited Orchestra – because she needs to hear it, if only inside her own head.

After four years of chasing Republican skirts in search of a grand austerity bargain; of debauching himself in marathon binges of global lawlessness and aggressive war; of defiling the Bill of Rights through preventive detention and massive domestic spying; of callous neglect of the jobs and lost wealth crisis afflicting the most loyal members of his political family; and of brazen cavorting with the vile and filthy rich, sheltering them from incarceration for crimes against the national and global economy, Barack Obama slunk home on the morning of January 21, to be smothered with kisses.

Much of what passes for the Left, and for traditional African American leadership, agreed with the New York Times’ assessment that Barack Obama’s second inaugural address represented a firm embrace of “a progressive agenda centered on equality and opportunity.” Significantly, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell echoed the sentiment: ”The era of liberalism is back…the speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past.”

It is in the mutual interest of corporate media and rightwing Republicans to move the bar of “progressive” politics ever rightward. However, for African Americans and white progressives, it amounts to erasing their own political legacies from history.

“There is no agreement to end U.S. combat involvement in Afghanistan, and no intention of achieving one.”

Actuality, Obama embraced nothing: he merely peppered the speech with progressive buzzwords and references – just enough notes to get the faithful to fill in the empty spaces with their own internal music. It was classic Obama.

“A decade of war is now ending,” said the Second Incarnation of Obama, sounding a false “peace” note. If he was talking about Afghanistan, that’s a damnable lie. There is no agreement to end U.S. combat involvement in Afghanistan, and no intention of achieving one – only the stated goal to lower troop levels. The Pentagon is fielding contingencies to reduce U.S. troop strength to between 6,000 and 20,000. (When Obama entered office there were 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he raised to about 100,000 in the “surge” of 2011.) Although the administration line is that most of the remaining Americans will be “trainers,” they will include thousands of Special Forces troops to continue “counterinsurgency” and “counterterrorism” operations. Special Forces are “trainers” and “force multipliers” by U.S. military definition, “training” native troops while engaged in combat missions. U.S. air forces, drone and manned, will continue to pound targets. Obama’s nearly completed “codification” of U.S. drone policies exempts the CIA from any clear rules for “targeted-killing” drone operations in neighboring Pakistan for at least a year, to allow them to do as much damage as possible in the quest for Obama’s version of peace. …more

Noura al Khalifa Ms al Khalifa has denied the charges against her

Bahraini princess facing multiple torture charges
23 January, 2013 – BBC

A Bahraini princess is facing charges of torturing pro-democracy activists in the Gulf island kingdom.

Noura Bint Ebrahim al-Khalifa, who serves in Bahrain’s Drugs Control Unit, is accused along with another officer of torturing three people in detention.

Hundreds of protesters were detained as Bahrain struggled to put down a popular uprising that began in February 2011.

The uprising, which began peacefully with calls for democratic reform, was crushed by the ruling al-Khalifas.

Noura al-Khalifa, 29, who denies the charges, appeared in court on Sunday and Monday to hear the allegations.

In one case, the princess is accused of torturing two doctors, Ghassan and Bassem Daif, brothers who worked at the Salmaniya medical complex.

Medical staff from the facility went to help injured protesters after security police used force to disperse thousands of people who had camped out at an iconic landmark, Pearl Roundabout, in the capital, Manama.

At least two people were killed and hundreds wounded when police attacked with batons, tear gas and birdshot.

In March and April 2011 many of the medical staff were arrested and detained. It is alleged that Ms al-Khalifa tortured the doctors at that time.

She is also accused of torturing another person, 21-year-old Ayat al-Qurmazi.

Ms al-Qurmazi was arrested in March 2011 after giving public readings of poetry she wrote that was critical of the ruling family.

She alleges she was held for nine days, blindfolded, beaten with cables and threatened with rape. She identified Ms al-Khalifa as her torturer.

‘Online threats’

Ms al Qurmazi’s lawyer Reem Khalaf told the BBC that on one occasion while she was being beaten around her head, the blindfold slipped and she saw Ms al-Khalifa.

“Noura was very angry that Ayat had seen her,” Ms Khalaf said.

Ayat al-Qurmazi told the BBC she did not regret reading her poems or taking Noura al-Khalifa to court, even though she had lost her place at college and was the target of online threats and abuse.

“I am not sorry. I only said what all Bahrainis feel and I haven’t done anything against my country. What I am doing, I am doing for my country.”

The case was adjourned to 7 February after three witnesses failed to turn up.

No-one from the Bahrain government was available to comment on the charges against Ms al-Khalifa. …more