Comments on: A Disenchanted James Petras

By: Rico

Rico — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:31:00 +0000

PS,
As for Castro… Petras is spot on!

“Centre-left” mean centre-left.

By: Rico

Rico — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:27:24 +0000

Aidan, FARC is as strong as ever. A few stints of psychological warfare by the US and Colombian media plus a war crime (with the help of a traitor) to rescue capitalist politicians and three CIA agents complicit in supporting a narco-fascist state… does not mean the end of the most powerful insurgency in Latin American history.
As for Chavez, he has received a bombardment of criticism from the Latin American left. What right does he have to comment on the Colombian revolutionaries? Capitulationism is not accomodationism. The “parliamentary road to Venezuelan socialism???” Or Venezuelan nationalism?

By: Aidan

Aidan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:22:24 +0000

For once I must strongly disagree with Petras. His claims that Chavez’ actions are ’stalinism’ is absolute nonsense – we all know very well that the F.A.R.C. has run its road to the end now.
The F.A.R.C. does indeed provide a perfect excuse for the U.S. of A and its lackeys to keep a strong military presence in the region, which could at any time be used to attack the bolivarian countries; and also, it gives a reason for murderous thugs like Uribe and Santos to stay in power in Columbia. I know very well that the last times the F.A.R.C. tried to enter politics they were slaughtered by the (apparently democratic!) government, and had no choice but to return to the jungle.
But now, in the age of the Bolivarian Revolution, there is a new hope for a change in Columbia that does not involve trading coke, kidnapping people, and terrorising civilians. The F.A.R.C. have lost their leaders. They have even lost Marulanda, who was the damn best guerrilla hero still fighting! They face widespread dissilusionment and resulting desertion. Let them step down with dignity – we can’t keep propping the corpse of the movement up.
Chavez has always stood for peaceful, democratic revolution – that *is* Chavism. The Bolivarian revolution represnets the future for socialism in Latin America – Fidel, revolutionary hero himself, can recognise that.
The F.A.R.C. are a relic from an age when violence was indeed the only means to an end – there is no place for them in this new era, unless they reform themselves and join in with the Bolivarian ideal of peaceful revolution.

It is time for them to go.
Farewell, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Columbia.

By: hp

hp — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:55:52 +0000

Wow, look at all those Jewish-Americans speaking out against Israel and her Zionist criminal policies. Criticizing Israel.
Look at em all.
All ten of them.

By: Brian Koontz

Brian Koontz — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:49:22 +0000

“Jewish power, the economic power of that minority, Jews control the media, Jewish lobby… dentists (!) where did I heard this before? mmm.. oh, yes, Adolf!”

How curious – replace “Jews” with “Whites” and people nod their heads in understanding. Whites are a minority that are overwhelming represented in the global ruling class.

Yet when just as true an observation is made concerning Zionists suddenly Hitler is evoked, despite this evocation being entirely nonsensical.

This is a Zionist strategy to pretend there is anti-semitism whenever there is any criticism, any fact stated, regarding Zionism or Zionists. The more factual and powerful the statement, the more fervent the Zionists are in calling out “Anti-Semitism!”

As for Chomsky, he wants a return to the 1967 two-state solution as approved by the United Nations. He typically supports UN resolutions, which is somewhat curious since the UN is controlled by the same US elite that he otherwise denounces. The impracticality of returning to the 1967 resolution given the physical changes in the area since then are not addressed by Chomsky that I have seen.

By: Faboulous

Faboulous — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:04:34 +0000

Jewish power, the economic power of that minority, Jews control the media, Jewish lobby… dentists (!) where did I heard this before? mmm.. oh, yes, Adolf!

(minus the dentists part, I think)

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:17:57 +0000

chomsky was , along illan pappe, recently interviewed by ich. for the first time i heard chomsky say that he’s for two- state sol’n.
however, since there’s little left of pals territory we can firmly conclude the second state is not available .
what’s available is shreds and whisps of land most of which r separated from one another.
petras, i deduce, is correct in his doubts ab noam. so am i.
chomsky, by being for two states, is approbating zionist/w’jewry crimes and rewarding them w. immoral gain of land; at least all of palestine.
thus he can be called a mini zionist. many others want more than just what they have now. thank u