Friday, 29 April 2011

SONS OF MALCOLM's SUKANT CHANDAN SPEAKS ON OBAMA AND THE NOBEL PRIZE ON PRESS TV DEBATE



2 comments:

brian said...

FYI Note that Ridley quotes Malcolm X in her article, as if he would support a NATO bombing of Libya:
================
Just when you thought things couldnt get more absurd, now we have the following amazing tale. British journalist Yvonne Ridely, who happily supported the Mavi Marmara when it as attacked by Israel, after a trip to Benghazi(why did she go?) has suddenly had another conversion..this time to the Dark Side.BUT she picked a bad time to covert, as NATO has just bombed Tripoli and killed a son of Gadafi and three grandchildren as well as other persons. Here is her tale:


http://www.redress.cc/global/yridley20110430

here is what she is now supporting:

'TRIPOLI, Libya - A NATO missile struck a house in Tripoli where Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were staying on Saturday, killing his youngest son and three grandchildren but missing the Libyan leader, a government spokesman said.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/libyan-leader-offers-negotiations-with-nato-powers-as-air-strikes-hit-government-complex-121017679.html

anyone who can write her or see her in person should do so. Its outrageous that someone like her is supporting the insurgents and NATO airstrikes... she is now implicated morally in mass murder. What does she know of gadafi? Nothing not filtered thru the insurgents propaganda.

Anonymous said...

I’ve been following this blog for a while, as occasionally information that interests me is posted. I’ve just watched the debate on the legitimacy of the Noble Peace Prize. What I cannot understand is the constant defence and cheer leading of President Obama by the author of this blog and the incessant referral to The President of the United States as ‘Brother Obama’. I think it shows a distinct lack of understanding of politics within America and on a global scale in capitalist societies.

Clearly there was a wave of optimism during Obama’s campaign and he was touted as a black liberal who would enact real change. However I believe this view was, and has subsequently been proven to be, terminally naive. It seems the author’s defence of Obama is solely based on the fact he is black.

No one can argue that it was historic that America voted for a black president but if anything I believe the view that a black man could not possibly be reactionary is not only absurd but harmful to the black rights movement. The author’s view of Obama seems to be that his hands are tied and he is in effect a ‘slave’ to white imperialists. Obama has always expressed his unwavering support for Israel and has escalated the war in Afghanistan and started a bombing campaign in Pakistan leaving thousands dead. Now he and his administration have turned their attention towards Libya in what is clearly a war for imperialist gain (not even mentioning racist element of the rebels in eastern Libya).

In my opinion the backing of Obama and Hilary Clinton by the elites within American politics is a stunt to pull the wool over the eyes of those who cannot comprehend that a black man and a female politician could possibly be as reactionary as their predecessors. The author’s views of Obama seem to echo the line taken by The Nation of Islam, led by Farrakhan... Another individual held in high esteem on this blog despite the widely accepted accusation that the Nation of Islam assassinated Malcolm X. Apart from that, keep up the good work. Chris