How Kampuchea viewed Vietnam invading their country

“Militarization of the Vietnamese economy was creating serious strains. Industrial development was falling increasingly behind schedule (falling short of planned quotas by 15% at the end of 1978, according to Vietnamese official figures). The agricultural sector, still largely unmodernized, was extended to the utmost and encountering serious difficulties- 1978 saw a rice deficit of three million metric tons- and conscription and austerity were producing discontent and resentment among the people. But to abandon the scheme of conquest would mean risking the loss of aid, now vital, from Moscow; so another step was taken on the path of economic and political dependence, and the Vietnamese leadership went back to the bank in the Kremlin. Vietnam joined the CMEA (‘Comecon’) in June, 1978, and signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation, containing a military assistance clause, with the U.S.S.R. in November. Massive shipments of arms from the U.S.S.R. were received shortly thereafter, along with several thousand Soviet military advisers, and by December Hanoi was ready for another try.

This time, in order to provide a Khmer cover for invasion they set up a ‘Front’- a nicety overlooked in 1977. This ‘Front’ has a certain comical aspect: it seems to be composed of people off the street. None of its leading elements are known to have played any notable role in Kampuchean politics before. For example, Heng Samrin, the chairman of the ‘Front’, is variously described in press reports as an army political commissar at various levels, a divisional commander, battalion commander, and a brigade commander, Khmers active in the revolution for many years have never heard of him.

By late December of 1978, the invasion was well under way. At least thirteen divisions- 130,000 troops- had entered Kampuchea, with extremely heavy air support. (Estimates range as high as eighteen divisions.) At this point, the Vietnamese leaders may have been somewhat concerned for their international reputation, on December 23, in Phnom Penh, assassins attacked a guest house in which three Western journalists- Richard Dudman, Elizabeth Becker, and Malcolm Caldwell- were staying, and murdered Caldwell. His sympathy for Kampuchea and his skepticism about the atrocity stories were well known; and, as a respected progressive journalist, his eyewitness testimony in favor of Kampuchea would have had a significant impact on public opinion.

As we go to press, the invaders are in a position rather worse than that of Lon Nol. They hold some of the major cities- though their hold is precarious: Kompng Som has changed hands three times and Pursat twice. They dare not move along the highways, unless they do so in force, and having to rebuild every bridge they come to slows them down a good deal. Their supply lines are extremely extended and vulnerable. Their troops are not ethnic Khmers, and aerial bombardment does nothing to endear them to the Kampuchean people, who supported the government even before the Vietnamese arrived. It goes without saying that the invaders have failed to pacify the countryside. Fighting continues everywhere, especially near the Vietnamese border, where their control ought to be strongest.

Hanoi will not be able to maintain an army of occupation, numbering over 100,000 men, in Kampuchea for any length of time without a vastly increased militarization of their already troubled economy and the consequent total dependence on the Soviet Union. So they must now hope to throttle off any route of resupply from outside the country, expecting that this will cause resistance to collapse. But even if they do succeed in cutting off all external supplies- by no means a certainty- such supplies are not necessary to forces fighting a people’s war.”

(Source: Democratic Kampuchea waging People’s War)


Joseph Stalin talks about Socialism in One Country in a simple way

“The first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between classes in our country. This concerns the sphere of internal relations.

Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them?

Can the working class of our country, in alliance – with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society?

Such are the problems that are connected with the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the affirmative.

Lenin teaches us that “we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society.”

Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist society.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and those other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied that it was possible to build Socialism in our country unless the victory of the Socialist revolution was first achieved in other countries, in capitalist countries. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen wanted to turn our country back to the path of bourgeois development and they concealed their apostasy by hypocritically talking about the “victory of the revolution” in other countries.

This was precisely the point of controversy between our Party and these gentlemen.

Our country’s subsequent course of development proved that the Party was right and that Trotsky and company were wrong.

For, during this period, we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie, in establishing fraternal collaboration with our peasantry and in building, in the main, Socialist society, notwithstanding the fact that the Socialist revolution has not yet been victorious in other countries.

This is the position in regard to the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

I think, Comrade Ivanov, that this is not the side of the question that is the point of controversy between you and Comrades Urozhenko and Kazelkov.

The second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, capitalist countries; the problem of the mutual relations between the working class of our country and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This concerns the sphere of external, international relations.

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that “the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale” (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

“We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization.” (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

“We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair’s breadth from invasion.” (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in “Problems of Leninism” that :

“The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

“Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism,” (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?

Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but “in a system of States,” a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost.

The whole of our people must be kept in a state of mobilisation and preparedness in the face of the danger of a military attack, so that no “accident” and no tricks on the part of our external enemies may take us by surprise . . .

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that “we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism.”

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Comrade Urozhenko’s assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat.

If it is true that “we have full guarantee against intervention and restoration of capitalism,” then why do we need a strong Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, a strong Chemical and Air Defence Society, more and stronger ties with the international proletariat?

Would it not be better to spend the milliards that now go for the purpose of strengthening the Red Army on other needs and to reduce the Red Army to the utmost, or even to dissolve it altogether?

People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if subjectively they are loyal to our cause, are objectively dangerous to it because by their boastfulness they – willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference!) – lull the vigilance of our people, demobilise the workers and peasants and help the enemies to take us by surprise in the event of international complications.

As for the fact that, as it appears, you, Comrade Ivanov, have been “removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the Y.C.L.,” you have nothing to fear.

If the people in the Regional Committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekov’s Sergeant Prishibeyev, you can be quite sure that they will lose on this game.

Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book “Problems of Leninism” on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not.

I myself would very much like it to be out of date.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.”

(Source: )

Joseph Stalin talks about the contradictions within the capitalist system

“It is said that the law of the average rate of profit is the basic economic law of modern capitalism. That is not true. Modern capitalism, monopoly capitalism, cannot content it-self with the average profit, which moreover has a tendency to decline, in view of the increasing organic composition of capital. It is not the average profit, but the maximum profit that modern monopoly capitalism demands, which it needs for more or less regular extended reproduction.

Most appropriate to the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism is the law of surplus value, the law of the origin and growth of capitalist profit. It really does determine the basic features of capitalist production. But the law of surplus value is too general a law; it does not cover the problem of the highest rate of profit, the securing of which is a condition for the development of monopoly capitalism. In order to fill this hiatus, the law of surplus value must be made more concrete and developed further in adaptation to the conditions of monopoly capitalism, at the same time bearing in mind that monopoly capitalism demands not any sort of profit, but precisely the maximum profit. That will be the basic economic law of modern capitalism.

The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism might be formulated roughly, in this way: the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and, lastly, through wars and militarization of the national economy, which are utilized for the obtaining of the highest profits.

It is said that the average profit might nevertheless be regarded as quite sufficient for capitalist development under modern conditions. That is not true. The average profit is the lowest point of profitableness, below which capitalist production becomes impossible. But it would be absurd to think that, in seizing colonies, subjugating peoples and engineering wars, the magnates of modern monopoly capital-ism are striving to secure only the average profit. No, it is not the average profit, nor yet super-profit – which, as a rule, represents only a slight addition to the average profit – but precisely the maximum profit that is the motor of monopoly capitalism. It is precisely the necessity of securing the maximum profits that drives monopoly capital-ism to such risky undertakings as the enslavement and systematic plunder of colonies and other backward countries, the conversion of a number of independent countries into dependent countries, the organization of new wars – which to the magnates of modern capitalism is the “business” best adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit – and, lastly, attempts to win world economic supremacy.

The importance of the basic economic law of capitalism consists, among other things, in the circumstance that, since it determines all the major phenomena in the development of the capitalist mode of production, its booms and crises, its victories and defeats, its merits and demerits – the whole process of its contradictory development – it enables us to understand and explain them.”

(Source: )

Stalin talks about why the U.S.S.R developed nuclear weapons

(This is an interview Joseph Stalin did with the newspaper Pravda)


“Question: What is your opinion of the hubbub raised recently in the foreign press in connection with the test of an atom bomb in the Soviet Union?

Answer: Indeed, one of the types of atom bombs was recently tested in our country. Tests of atom bombs of different calibers will be conducted in the future as well, in accordance with the plan for the defense of our country from attack by the Anglo-American aggressive bloc.

Question: In connection with the test of the atom bomb, various personages in the United States are raising alarm and shouting about the threat to the security of the United States. Are there any grounds for such alarm?

Answer: There are no grounds whatever for such alarm. Personages in the United States cannot but know that the Soviet Union is not only opposed to the employment of the atomic weapon, but that it also stands for its prohibition and for the termination of its production. It is known that the Soviet Union has several times demanded the prohibition of the atomic weapon, but each time this has been refused by the Atlantic bloc powers. This means that, in the event of an attack by the United States on our country, the ruling circles of the United States will use the atom bomb. It is this circumstance that has compelled the Soviet Union to have the atomic weapon in order to meet the aggressors fully prepared. Of course the aggressors want the Soviet Union to be unarmed in the event of their attack upon it. The Soviet Union, however, does not agree to this, and it thinks that it should be fully prepared to meet the aggressor. Consequently, if the United States has no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, the alarm of the personages in the United States should be considered as pointless and false, because the Soviet Union does not contemplate ever attacking the United States or any other country.

Personages in the United States are vexed because the secret of the atom bomb is possessed not only by the United States but also by other countries, the Soviet Union primarily. They would like the United States to be the monopolist of the production of the atom bomb. They would like the United States to have unlimited power to intimidate and blackmail other countries. But on what grounds do they think so? By what right do the interests of preserving peace require such monopoly? Would it not be more correct to say that matters are directly the opposite, that it is the interests of preserving peace that require first of all the liquidation of such a monopoly and then the unconditional prohibition of the atomic weapon too? I think that the proponents of the atom bomb may agree to the prohibition of the atomic weapon only if they see that they are no longer monopolists.”

(Source: )

What is Fascism? The beginning of a discussion about what it means to be a Fascist.

“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality- thus it may be called the ‘ethnic’ State.”

(Source- What is Fascism by Benito Mussolini)

“There’s nothing more hypocritical than a well-fed citizen protesting against the working class idea of class struggle. You made it through the winter all snug and comfortable. Your very person is provocative of class struggle. What gives you the right to puff yourself up, all swelled with the pride of national responsibility, against the struggle of the working class? For almost 60 years, has the middle-class State really been anything other than an organized one-class State which out of compelling historical necessity, itself gave rise to the working class concept of class struggle? Didn’t you pay the price of this one-class State on November 9, 1918? And aren’t you at this very moment busily exploiting the people’s despair of the insanity of Marxism in order to re-establish the same old reactionary middle-class nonsense as before?”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“Are you monarchists or republicans?

Neither one nor the other. Because:

1.) The question of the organizational structure of a State is a very minor one today. A people wasting away under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles has other things to worry about than the question of monarchy versus republic.

2.) The people will be able to settle this question once and for all only when they have their liberty.

But in principle we say:

A good republic is better than a bad monarchy, and a good monarchy is better than a bad republic. Both forms of government have their merits and their disadvantages. Weighing them against each other is the concern of a people facing the rest of the world in liberty.”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“It is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor, we must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.

We permit no one to try raising on Romanian soil another flag, save that of our national history. No matter how the workers’ class may be, we do not tolerate that it rise up against the country or that it make common cause with foreign movements outside our borders. No one will admit that for your bread you lay waste and band over into the bands of a foreign people of bankers and usurers, everything that for two millennia the sweat of a people of workers and brave ones has saved. Your rights, yes- but within the rights of your people.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“I believe in the one and undivided Romanian State, from Dniester to the Tisa,. the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God, concerned about the country and its people; giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and to women; protector of the family, paying its public servants. At that time we had not heard of Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism and workers on the basis of the number of children and the work performed, quality and quantity; and in a State, supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences; and in addition to salaries, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“The Zionists declare interest in the Orient, yet energetically safeguard themselves against going to Palestine as pioneers of Europe. A leading writer even openly said that the Zionists would Fight alongside the ranks of the wakening Asiatic peoples. From the fire of all burning thorn bushes and from the nights of solitude only one cry resounds to them: Asia. Zionism, it is asserted, is only a partial idea of pan Asiaticism. At the same time a spiritual and political link passes over to the idea of Red Bolshevism. The Zionist, Holitscher, discovered the inner parallels between Moscow and Zion, while the Zionist, F. Kohn, declared that- from the patriarchs- a single line extends up to Karl Marx, to Rosa Luxembourg, and to all Jewish Bolsheviks who have served the cause of freedom.

This Zionism proclaims its wish to found a Jewish state. A desire may quite honorably exist among a few leaders for some final redemption to build a pyramid of life on the soil of the Jewish nation. Building such a state results in a vertical structure in deference and contrast to the horizontal layering of former existence. Regarded from the primordial aspect, this Jewish infection is alien to our national feeling and to the ideas of state of the European peoples.”

(Source- Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg)

Ibn al-Khattab talks about the war in Tajikistan

“Regarding the Tajik cause, I say to the Muslims: I remember in Tajikistan that I spoke with Abdulloh Nuri, the leader of the Tajik, I mentioned to him that we have minimum experience, so we don’t want to be presented as masters in the field of military operations and jihad. It is known that every cause has many problems. For example: teaching the Muhajreen (refugees) and media work. There were many problems of this kind in the camps of the Muhajreen.

We mentioned to them that we only came to give support and aid. If there were any problems, there should be direct contact with Sayid Abdulloh Nuri, so that nobody can interfere in the matters of the mujahidin and if there were any interference Ustaz Abdulloh Nuri will immediately take care of it. Alhamdulillah it was an experience which we benefited from. On the contrary, other groups came and stayed with the Tajik in their camps and began to ask them for food, tents, ammunition, etc. They complained and said ‘we have 1000 problems’ and these brothers themselves became problem 1001.

If we come to a cause and begin to ask its people for help, knocking on the doors of the leadership, asking for meetings, demanding petrol, diesel, ammunition, plans for an ambush or operation then this is not the true meaning of support. In reality you are only increasing the problems. These things happened but we tried to avoid it and didn’t allow anyone to interfere in our work.

We began to work and prepare. I said to the brothers that if anyone wants to be involved in any action he should be prepared and shouldn’t ask anything from anyone. It’s true that they came to support and coordinate under one leadership from that country, but going to battle and arranging the matters should be in the hands of the Ansar, if they were one group or more.

In my opinion, this was a very good experience and had good success in it. I discussed with many brothers who visited us, they said that we should support the leadership and take from the leadership and such. So we told them that we aren’t Tajik. We came to give support and help; we cannot stay on the mountains and ask them to give us aid. We have to be prepared.

I remember what happened in Afghanistan. There were many problems with some of the Afghan and the Ansar. Like when someone got martyred or fell in a mine field, we would ask the Afghans to bring his body back. We weren’t ready to take care of our dead and wounded and such matters. Fighting is fighting. It is not an easy thing. Or when an operation happened and 30 or 40 got killed. How could 30 or 40 die in an operation? Was it planned properly? So they blame the Afghan commanders or they claim that a particular group didn’t cover them with artillery, or that this group hit them or this group left them. I remember after every operation here would be problems and they would look for a scapegoat and put the problems on someone’s back. Really there was no studying and order in the case of entering. There were some fronts, Alhamdulillah, which had an arranged leadership and the situation was much better.

Regarding the operations, there were many examples in Afghanistan, to avoid all kinds of problems we prepared ourselves for Tajikistan. We spent four months only preparing what we need. We prepared a house, bought weapons, wireless equipment, and transportation like cars and trucks. Crossing the river, which was a very big problem, only that is considered jihad. We visited the border region and we regularly meet with Adbulsamaad (Mullah Qurban) the commander of that area and, one of the good educated Tajik brothers who knows Arabic. We also met a commander called Yahiya in Alur and Shayab.

We explored the area and prepared all matters. We only asked the Tajik for one thing. We said to them: ‘we don’t want your money or weapons. We won’t cost you anything. We came to give you aid. We just want from you one thing: Mujahidin who you endorse and know, so that we train and prepare them with everything. After those men are fully trained we can enter battles. We have entered in front of those people/ We shouldn’t urge people while we are sitting or talking through the radio. we should be in front of them. If we present anything good then it is for Islam and if we didn’t present anything we wouldn’t cost you anything. So that no one will say that Al0Ansar came to us from this group and we gave them weapons, ammunition and clothes, but they cheated us or they didn’t know what to do, or they cost us heavy expenses for nothing, and such talk that would be said by the hypocrites or who work on such matters. We have come to you so that we can provide you from our side.

Alhamdulillah, we carried out some successful operations. This was our strategy in supporting the Tajik and I swear to Allah that it succeed, but some of the people in the leadership tried to say, why are they not under our command or why those people have cars and such talk. They even appointed a commander called ‘Radwan’, he was the most insidious that I have ever seen. In the end they killed him. When they appointed him as military Amir, he tried to interfere in our matters, but we said to him not to come to our area. We are only connected with Abdulloh Nuri.

According to me and those who were with me this experience was very hard. We used to solve every problem that faced us. When we went to Afghanistan the jihad was ready. The roads and the fronts were safe. The brothers only went to camps to get trained, he would be received and move between guest houses and camps. After that he goes to the front and the Afghan brothers will keep him in certain position and tell him to shoot at this or that direction, and nothing else. We didn’t solve problems from the beginning, like building roads, searching for water, planning things from scratch, arrange the transportation, communications, knowing the locations and many other things. If I talk about these subjects I have to go into the details and leave the main subject.

In my opinion, we didn’t really do jihad in Afghanistan. The Afghans did almost everything. Many brothers came to Afghanistan after 1985/1986 and the majority of them in 1988.  The brothers who came in the beginning faced the difficulties. At that time most of the matters were already arranged. In Tajikistan we began with nothing and we weren’t used to that. This was a new experience for us. It was a hard and tough experience in all standards. I don’t think that I or the brothers who were with me will go once again through an experience like Tajikistan. Sometimes the cars would reach an area, then for three or four days to a certain area, then we would walk with donkeys and muels until we reach rivers. The river by itself was a monster and only crossing it was a jihad. There were mountains which I have never seen in my life, the least height was 3000 or 2500 meter. Alhamdulillah, we did one or two operations despite the problems of the Afghans who lived there and problems regarding supplying the mujahideen. The main problem that faced us was getting food and roads which we couldn’t find.

Once I went to reconnaissance, I found about 25 posts through 9 Kilometers. There were routes that you cannot walk in and even the mules cannot walk on. I remember that we used to pay to move the BM Katyusha rocket launcher from our first base before the border for 2000 for each rocket, and from there we would move it to the river for 6000, and after crossing the river they take a 1000 then an Afghan person would carry it on his back, because there was a section of porters, who would carry I to the front for 6000. If we calculate the total expenses of one rocket it is 5000 rupees plus 12000 rupees, until it reaches the front, which means the price increases 2-3 times to keep it with the weapons. It was a very hard cause, but Alhamdulillah the brothers learned and gained a lot from it. The problems needed to be solved from day to night.

We stayed in Tajikistan and wanted to prepare the people for jihad. Our number was small, 100 to 120 people. Then we began to prepare for larger numbers, 300 to 400 mujahideen. Our capabilities were weak and the Muslims weren’t concerned about the cause. Maybe because the problems in Afghanistan, and the continuous fighting between the factions. Also the roads there were hard and it wasn’t easy for the good people to reach it. As I said before, the cause was treated with injustice and it was from the hardest causes that the Muslims faced. The weak leadership and the problems between them was also a problem. I didn’t see any people who are fanatic about nationalism- we ask Allah wellness from this- like the Tajik, when they would speak against each other, they would say; he is from Panj province, and this one is from Qulab province, and he is from Dushanbe, this is from that province and he is from that province.

Alhamdulillah, it was a good experience for us. While the brothers who came to support the cause and went to other locations with the Tajik, they had transportation problems and conflicting orders. So they came out of this with low morals. They said that the Tajik have nothing and they only want to fight. In the end, instead of supporting the cause they came out with bad ideas and began to say things about it that shouldn’t have been said. This was the first experience with the Tajik, but you had an experience before it, so why did you go to them and begin an experience from scratch? What made you go through these problems? You have been granted by Allah by a previous experience and you know about weapons and fighting, so you have only to work according to your own knowledge. To put everything on the shoulders of the Tajik is not right. There were many problems and the hypocrites were working from the inside. So unfortunately the brothers came out with a bad idea and said some things that shouldn’t have been said. There was no need for these matters.”

(Source: )


Liberalism is the Death of Nations: by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck

“When the World War broke out, the western newspapers blazed with the headline: la liberte est en jeu! This misled world opinion. The particular cause became a general cause and acquired a halo. What our enemies sought was not liberty but power. Anyone who had examined the question with an open mind would have bade the discovery that in liberal countries political freedom is not enjoyed by the people, who on the contrary are carefully shepherded by certain ruling classes. What these ruling classes mean by liberty, is freedom and scope for their own intrigues. This they attain by means of parliamentism which secures them power under cover of the constitution and so-called representation of the people. Such is the specious mask which liberalism wears when it shouts ‘liberty’: the mask it wore at the outbreak of the War. This was the first betrayal.

When our enemies were not able to break our resistance in the first clash of arms, they then proceeded to decoy the German people. They trotted out the idea of progress, which is so easily confused with the idea of liberty. If the nations had been compared in respect of their achievement, Germany would ahve come brilliantly out of the comparison, and the western powers would have been put to shame. But from the standpoint of parliamentary institutions Germany could be made to appear behind the times. The German people were assured that they were oppressed under their constitution. Pacifist and anti-military questions were dragged into the foreground-since no one could pretend that we were suffering economically- and foreign politics were skilfully confused with domestic affairs, with the German constitution and even the Prussian suffrage. Our enemies had too bad a conscience to touch, except with the utmost caution, on the question of the origin of the War. They obscured the real causa causans- their policy of encirclement- with the irrelevent and accidental facts of the actual declaration of war, and they ignored as far as possible that their Russian ally bore the responsibility for the first mobilization. Their eloquence grew greater when they pointed out, as one war-year succeeded another and the end was not yet in sight, that Germany would be the greatest sufferer by a prolongation of the War. The intoxicating message reached us in the solemn words from the White House: ‘There must be Peace without Victory.’

This message reached a people who had not wanted the War and who did not realize that their whole future was at stake. The German people were not at one on the question of their War aims, which we could only formulate as the War progressed, whereas our enemies had all along been clear about their, and had reached secret understandings amongst themselves and spoke openly to their public, treating their aims as self-evident. The conduct of Germany demonstrated at every turn how uttery unprepared she was for this War, the guilt of which has been laid at her door. She now saw the opportunity of regaining that peace in which she had been before so well content. ‘Peace without Victory’ sounded acceptable to a people who with an heroic constancy and a quiet sense of duty had hitherto endured the privation, suffering and sacrifice that had been heaped upon it. They welcomed the idea with that innate credulity and good faith which makes us always ready to accept what our advisers-outside advisers in this case-recommend as the wise thing, bit it never so unwise.

The senseless war would retrospectively acquire a meaning if it lead to a reconciliation of the nations which would accord to each nation its due and would rob none. Our German democrats and the liberal elements in the nation were the first to be lured by this snare, and thus the way was paved for those intrigues which led to our overtures for peace in 1917. This same credulity offered fruitful soil to Northcliffe’s propoganda, which was directed to all malcontents, traitors and revolutionaries, to all would-be socialist, progressive, parliamentarian elements: liberals all, but now not merely over-credulous liberals, but criminal liberals. Credulity and treachery prepared the ground for the events of 1918 and 1919: these things inevitably brought about the Insurrection, the conditions of the Armistice, the surrender of the battle fleet, the decoying away of our mercantile marine; and the most grevious of our deceptions: that we had only to confess ourselves guilty of the outbreak of the War to win for ourselves by this easy lie more favourable peace conditions. That was the second betrayal.

A little time passed before the Founder of Peace himself stood revealed as the liberal that he was. The words ‘Peace without Victory’ were spoken before our peace overtures of 1917. When we had once been guided into the path our enemies wished us to take, these words were never repeated to us. Still less were they fulfilled after our collapse in 1918, when our enemies had reached their goal. Today it is almost a matter of indifference whether Wilson ever believed his own words, or whether he only pronounced them at a moment when he throught those powers to whom he wished success would prove unable to achieve for themselves a ‘Peace with Victory.’ But no. It is not a matter of indifference, because it involves the whole liberal attitude of mind. It is peculiarly characteristic of the liberal to indulge in mental reservations; retrospectively to formulate his goal when he has ascertained what he is likely to be able to attain. ”

(Source: )

(Opinion) Riley Dennis and the importance of the Syrian Conflict: A response by the words of Dr. Ayman al- Zawahiri (Pt.1)

A Youtuber named Riley Dennis made a video about the Syrian Conflict a month ago in response to President Donald Trump bombing a Syrian air base that was allegedly used as a launching point for chemical strikes on civilians.

In the video Riley did say that it was meant to serve as a quick and brief introduction to the Syrian War, however it seems like another reason for Riley to continuously harp on President Trump; which there are many things we could bring up with regards to these short comings, the issue of Syria is much bigger than President Trump being in office, in fact the seeds for this conflict were sown long before the past three American administrations.

Most of the ideas behind the Islamic State comes from the ideas of Sayyid Qutb and his book Milestones, the main point of which is that to build an Islamic society a state needs to be established so as to train and teach other Muslims about Islam and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. From this Islamic State other groups would be given support to go and take the fight to their home countries (most of which are backed by foreign powers) and thus add to the Islamic State by overthrowing these oppressive governments.

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri says it best when he says “the struggle for the establishment of the Muslim state cannot be considered a regional struggle, certainly not after it had been ascertained that the Crusader alliance led by the United States will not allow any Muslim force to reach power in the Arab countries.” (His Own Words: The Writings of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri) 

    In a previous post the reasons for Israel being established was brought up, one of the more pronounced reasons was that it was meant to serve as a way to assure that Egypt and Syria couldn’t unite to fight against foreign intervention in the Islamic world. This was also the case with the peace treaties that were signed between Egypt and Israel, Dr. Zawahiri says that ” whoever examines the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty will realize that it was intended to be a permanent treaty from which Egypt could not break loose. It was concluded in an attempt to establish on the ground, by force and coercion, a situation whereby it would be difficult to change by any government hostile to Israel that comes after al-Muhahideen.” (His Own Words: The Writings of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri) 

The Syrian conflict is just another battleground for this idea of bringing back an Islamic way of living in that region, the same conflict took place in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. It also must be noted that this conflict has been going on in this form since 2011, that means that the Islamic State has been able to fight off the worlds powers for about 5 or 6 years (depending on when you think it was established.) However if you consider the Islamic State to have its roots from the Islamic State of Iraq during the Invasion of Iraq then that would mean that it’s history goes back to 2003 or 2004.

At this point it’s really a fight between the Islamic State and those who support it and the West with Russia and it’s ally’s fighting alongside it. In your video  you mentioned rebel groups, yet no other group has been able to fight like the Islamic State has been able to, at this point they’re all just names on paper, they don’t control how things happen on the ground.

To drive this home let’s look at the advice that Dr. Zawahiri gave to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when talking about the best way to create an Islamic state in Iraq:

“So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals.

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this Emirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The forth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.” (His Own Words: The Writings of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri) 

So to tie this all together, the real war is between those who want an Islamic style of governance in their own lands, and those who don’t want that. This is really a discussion about if people have a right to choose how they want to live, especially if it can be done through the ballot box.

If the problem could have been solved through the democratic process then it would have been solved a long time ago.

(The video that this was in response to can be found here: )

Why is Israel there? By Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri

” The establishment of Israel has been a western objective for over two centuries. The Israeli presence in the region was considered a basic guarantee for serving the western interests. Israel separates between Egypt and Syria, the two regions that for two centuries served as a wall of steadfastness against the Crusades and the Tatar conquests and that continue to this day to constitute a considerable human weight in the heart of the Islamic world

Let us remember Napoleon Bonaparte’s statement to the Jews following his invasion of Egypt and his failure to conquer Akko in 1799. Remember Bonaparte’s call to the Jews, whom he referred to as the ‘legitimate heirs to Palestine.’ Bonaparte’s message to the Muslims and his flirtation with Islam was a brazen act of deception while his call to the Jews was a different case.

Anwar al-Mujahideen was not the first to sign a separate deal between Israel and the Arabs. Prince Faysal did that before him. The latter wanted to buy his kingdom from the British by selling Palestine to the Jews.

During the 1973 war, when the United States shipped weapons, ammunition, and tanks to Israel for 33 days, the goal was to compensate Israel for its war losses and to swiftly upgrade the combat capabilities. This is one of many examples about the US flagrant support for Israel, including the US pressure on Egypt to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at a time when Israel publicly declared that it will not sign the treaty because of its special circumstances. Despite this, the United States sympathizes with Israel and overlooks its actions. This means that the United States has deliberately left the nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel to threaten its Arab neighbors.

The western states tried for over two centuries to establish Israel. They considered its presence in the region a basic guarantee for serving the Western interests. Israel separates Egypt and Syria, the two major regions that for several years served as a wall of steadfastness against the Crusades and the Tartar conquests. Until this day they constitute a considerable human weight in the heart of the Islamic world.

As for France, it has tried since the end of the 18th Century to establish Israel. Here are some examples:

When Napoleon Bonaparte headed for Syria, following his invasion of Egypt, he failed to conquer Akko in 1799. As a result, he issued his famous call to the Jews everywhere. His statement was distributed in Palestine as well as simultaneously in France, Italy, the German provinces, and Spain. This indicates that the issue was far greater than a local incident that Bonaparte faced, having failed to conquer the walls of Jerusalem. The statement said:

From Napoleon Bonaparte, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces in the French Republic in Africa and Asia, to the legitimate heirs of Palestine:

O Israelis; O unique people; the forces of conquest and tyranny have failed to deprive you of your origin and national existence although they deprive you of the land of your ancestors.

The neutral and rational observes of people’s destiny, although they lacked the powers of prophets such as Isaiah and Joel, have realized the prophecies predicted by these prophets through their sublime faith; namely, that God’s slaves (the word Israel in Hebrew means the slave of God) will return to Zion and chant. They will be overwhelmed with joy when they restore their kingdom without fear. Rise forcefully, O those expelled in the wilderness. You are facing a fierce battle waged by your people, after the enemy had considered the land inherited from the forefathers a booty to be divided among them as they wish.”

(Source- His Own Words: The Writings of Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, pg. 176-179)

Introduction to the idea of Marxism-Leninism

” Marx and Engels were the founders of scientific socialism. Their teachings have been continued and developed by Lenin and Stalin. The classics of Marxism comprise the works of these four leaders and teachers. They contain the guiding ideas of the working class struggle for socialism, the building of socialist society and the transition to  communism.

Marx and Engels showed that socialism was not the invention of dreamers but the inevitable outcome of the development of modern capitalist society.

They showed that capitalism was creating its own gravedigger in the person of the proletariat, the working class. Only the class struggle of the proletariat and its victory over the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, would rid humanity of exploitation of man by man.

Marx and Engels therefore taught the working class to be conscious of its own strength, of its own class interests, and to unite in a determined struggle against the capitalist class.

They discovered the laws of development of capitalist society, and proved scientifically that the development of the class struggle must inevitably lead to the fall of capitalism, to the conquest of power by the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

They taught that the working class must rally around itself all the forces discontented with capitalism, and lead them in the storming of capitalism. At the head of all working class people it must establish its own political rule, crush the resistance of the exploiters and create a new classless communist society.

And they taught that in order to achieve these aims the working class must have its own working class party, the Communist Party.

Lenin and Stalin have been the great continuers of the work of Marx and Engels in the new historical epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution.

Lenin developed Marx’s teachings in new historical conditions. Leninism is accordingly defined as ‘the Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution.’

The theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism has been further creatively developed by Stalin- the great disciple and collaborator of Lenin, who now leads the Soviet peoples in the construction of communism and teaches and inspires the people of the whole world in the fight for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism.

In this part, we introduce to the reader a few of the works dealing specifically with the personalities and lives of Marx, Engels and Lenin and the services they rendered to the international working-class movement.

On Stalin, the reader should consult the official biography and the Pravda Articles published on his 70th birthday (Soviet News Booklet). ”

(Source- )