Leaflet on terrorism after 9-11 - Kolinko

After the terrorist act in New York politicians of all parties and countries have called us together to defend 'our democratic state' against the'uncivilised world'. We don't believe that any state, be it American, German, Iraqi or Afghan, can save us from terrorism. Because the state both needs terrorism and also acts in a terrorist way itself every day.
The state acts in the interests of those who profit from others poverty: companies that make us slave for them, share dealers speculating with profit and arms dealers who benefit from every war in the world.
In this way the'democratic state' does not shy away from massacring thousands of innocents (e.g. the Gulf war or Yugoslavia) either, or supporting war leaders in othercountries. E.g. the USA first supported the Iraq and the Taliban during thewar against Iran and the Soviet Union respectively, only to declare them nowas their main enemies. But it has to be worth it.

Terrorism is part of business. The attacks in the US are a result of a terrorist foreign policy on the part of the US (and not just in the Middle East), and also form part of the game of power and money. People like Bin Laden try to defend 'their region' against competitors (foreign arms and companies), so they can rule and exploit the people themselves. Therefore, they don't act any more barbaric, or less barbaric, than the western armies - or would you call NATO uranium missiles against Iraqi or Serbian people 'civilised'. The whole religious ('Holy War'), nationalistic or humanitarian(the 'Good' against 'Evil') hysteria just disguises the fact that people are dying in the interests of the respective leaders. This is what happened on the 11 of September in New York.

Arafat, the PLO leader, was called a 'terrorist' for decades. After he had enforced himself in 'his own region' he became accepted as a state representative. His former terrorist groups are now the state army, and can offer international companies (e.g. DaimlerChrysler) a cheap workforce on 'his territory'.

The birth and maintenance of every state is a bloody process. Every state needs an internal or external enemy to hold 'its' workers in check, despite social cuts and increasing exploitation. The terrorist act in the US came at the right time for the state representatives in the industrialised countries and especially for Bush. Since about a year ago , the economic crisis in Europe and the US has started kicking in heavily. In the US one million jobs have been lost in industry. Opel wants to reduce its production by 15 percent. The 'New Economy' is looking old (e.g. AOL want to dismiss 20% of its staff in Germany. At Hewlett Packard and other companies wage cuts are imminent). The share prices have dropped dramatically.
How can the politicians possibly explain that the future looks bleak, despite allthe drudgery for less money in the last few years, despite all the produced wealth and high technology around us? How do they want to prevent us fighting against social cuts and redundancies and enforcing our own needs against the needs of profit and share prices? After the attacks they can get on with their crisis measures as anti-terror measures and they count on our acceptance, due to our fear of a new war.

They explain:
* The economic crisis is not a result of the economic system, but of the insecurity due to terrorism. (E.g. on the 16 September, after the wage struggles in the aviation sector, the air-line 'Continental' wanted to sack 12,000 people and declared that measure as a result of the terror act).
* We all have to pull together, whether we are rich or poor, against the 'Islamic Barbarians'; anyone who fights against austerity measures or the increasing pressure from employers is acting on behalf of the terrorists.
* Stricter laws (e.g. banning demonstrations and immigration) more cop control (the German home secretary is demanding fingerprints on peoples ID cards) or the spending of billions of dollars on military mobilisation are necessary to confront the terrorists.

We have to pay the bill for their policies and their crisis:
* As victims of war, be it through NATO bombers, or hijacked Boeings.
* As unemployed, whose work can't be exploited profitably any more, be it hungry in Baghdad or bored in Birmingham.
* As workers that have to work their asses off for the survival of the companies, be it in Chicago or Kabul.

We shouldn't let ourselves be intimidated by terrorism or by state anti- terrorism measures!
Let us sabotage those instigators that are trying to lead us to war as 'civilised/ uncivilised' or 'believers/ disbelievers'!
Lets fight at the workplace, in the streets, for a better life, in which our needs rule. For a life that is not defined by the drudgery for a collapsing system, and that is not endangered by war, stock market or aeroplane crashes!

prols against the (war) machine
[[email protected]]