Chavez supports Gaddafi

[Dimmu]

5:01am Venezuela's top diplomat on Thursday echoed Fidel Castro's accusation that Washington is fomenting unrest in Libya to justify an invasion to seize North African nation's oil reserves.

Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister said:

They are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya.

4:27am Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has backed Muammar Gaddafi on Twitter.

Chavez tweeted:

Gaddafi is facing a civil war.

Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/africa/2011/02/24/live-blog-libya-feb-25


What the hell is Chavez thinking? I know that Gaddafi was "anti-US".. But the madman is bombing hes own towns..

[Dimentio]

Probably, he thinks like this:

"If I don't verbally support Muammar, how would Mahmoud and Alexander be able to trust me any more?

iANTI-IMPERIALISMO O MUERTA!"

[Devrim]

What the hell is Chavez thinking? I know that Gaddafi was "anti-US".. But the madman is bombing hes own towns..

First, I don't think that Gaddafi is 'mad'. He is desperate and doing what he can to try to stay in power. Unlike Mubarak, and Ben Ali, he won't be running off to Saudi Arabia.

Second it is no surprise that Chavez is supporting him. Maybe it will help if you try to think of Chavez as a bourgeois politician running a capitalist state. His actions seem much more logical then.

Devrim

[Dimmu]

First, I don't think that Gaddafi is 'mad'. He is desperate and doing what he can to try to stay in power. Unlike Mubarak, and Ben Ali, he won't be running off to Saudi Arabia.

Second it is no surprise that Chavez is supporting him. Maybe it will help if you try to think of Chavez as a bourgeois politician running a capitalist state. His actions seem much more logical then.

Devrim

Well, i dont think that Gaddafi is "normal".. I mean look how he dresses, how he talks about himself and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:

Also, you are right that he wont be running off to SA, just because he has nowhere to run.

As for the Chavez IMHO he is giving a bad rep to us leftists.. He acts like an asshole and now supports a dictator just because he is anti-US..

[Dimentio]

Well, i dont think that Gaddafi is "normal".. I mean look how he dresses, how he talks about himself and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:

Also, you are right that he wont be running off to SA, just because he has nowhere to run.

As for the Chavez IMHO he is giving a bad rep to us leftists.. He acts like an asshole and now supports a dictator just because he is anti-US..

That is better than killing Venezuelans, which Chàvez to my knowledge hasn't done, even though the Anti-Chàvistas seems to have it as some kind of Freudian dream to show how terribly oppressed they are.

[TC]

His words on twitter were very carefully chosen after a long absence of any comments on it.

Lets look at what he actually said:

"Gaddafi is facing a civil war. "

-Thats a fact

"Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya."

Thats a pro-Libyain anti-imperialist statement that doesn't say anything about Gaddafi.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/africa/2011/02/24/live-blog-libya-feb-25


What the hell is Chavez thinking? I know that Gaddafi was "anti-US".. But the madman is bombing hes own towns..
http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/86546573.jpg

Mussa Kusa, Khaddafi's right hand.Trained by the CIA.

http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/5553668882.jpg

http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/7779993335.jpg

http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/66622244411.jpg

The son(of a *****) of Gaddafi

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zRCHDNMq98U/THgLvYqJCtI/AAAAAAAAADs/v5XeKXvCqx0/s1600/20090610GaddafiBerlusconi.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pixies/2009/8/29/1251584960707/Blair-and-Gaddafi-001.jpg

Thats how much of anti american Gaddafi is.

[Sir Comradical]

Probably, he thinks like this:

"If I don't verbally support Muammar, how would Mahmoud and Alexander be able to trust me any more?

iANTI-IMPERIALISMO O MUERTA!"

??

[Shokaract]

??

I think he's referring to Lukashenko.

[Devrim]

Well, i dont think that Gaddafi is "normal".. I mean look how he dresses, how he talks about himself and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:

"Look at how he dresses..."

Do you mean by this he sometimes wears traditional clothes and not a suit. Look at other Arab countries. People do it. Do you think that the King of Saudi Arabia is mad?

"how he talks about himself..."

Gaddafi is actually quite a good speaker. It might get lost in translation, but he isn't terrible.

"and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:"

Yes, so he surrounds himself with beautiful young women. So does Berlesconni. Nobody suggests he is 'mad'. Just a rich old man behaving how rich old men have a tendency to.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

I think Berlusconi is somewhat detached from reality.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, i dont think that Gaddafi is "normal".. I mean look how he dresses,


Eurocentrism. Why does everyone have to wear one of your Western-style suits? Who told you Western-style dress-codes are necessarily "universal"?



how he talks about himself


:confused:



and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:


Sexism. Why can't women serve as bodyguards? :rolleyes:

In fact, why do you even necessarily imply that sexual interests must be involved? If he had a bodyguard full of men, you wouldn't say anything, and certainly won't suspect Quaddafi of being gay.

This kind of "psychological profiling" of political leaders is really just bourgeois non-sense and really has to go, whether it's applied to capitalist leaders, Stalinist leaders, or Gaddafi.

[Dimmu]

Eurocentrism. Why does everyone have to wear one of your Western-style suits? Who told you Western-style dress-codes are necessarily "universal"?



:confused:



Sexism. Why can't women serve as bodyguards? :rolleyes:

In fact, why do you even necessarily imply that sexual interests must be involved? If he had a bodyguard full of men, you wouldn't say anything, and certainly won't suspect Quaddafi of being gay.

This kind of "psychological profiling" of political leaders is really just bourgeois non-sense and really has to go, whether it's applied to capitalist leaders, Stalinist leaders, or Gaddafi.
Actually i am not talking about wearing suits or not.. I am talking about how Gaddafi dresses like a rich SOB while wearing layers of layers of makeup.. Now thats bourgeois..

As for the bodyguards, its like you said has everything to do with sexism.. Do you really think that he uses them for protection?

[Queercommie Girl]

So if a man becomes a bodyguard it's because he is good at his job.

But if a woman becomes a bodyguard then it must be because she is fetishised as a sex symbol.

Do you think the career of being a bodyguard is unsuitable for women? :rolleyes:

Quaddafi may indeed have sexist views. But this doesn't make the institution of "women being bodyguards" itself abnormal at all.

Also, suppose Quaddafi is really gay and has a bodyguard full of handsome, fit men. Would you also consider these men to be discriminated against in the same way as the female bodyguards he has at the moment, given that it's probably also just based on homosexual "sexual interests"?

[punisa]

The title is misleading... Chavez did not openly support Gaddafi. He warned of a possible invasion of Libya (as did F.Castro) and this is the actual possibility.

He also says: "Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya."
Aren't these the EXACT slogans the anti-Gaddafi protesters are chanting?

I know that many here dislike Chavez, but do not resort to such practices as this one.

[Dimmu]

So if a man becomes a bodyguard it's because he is good at his job.

But if a woman becomes a bodyguard then it must be because she is fetishised as a sex symbol.

Do you think the career of being a bodyguard is unsuitable for women? :rolleyes:

Stop going for the straw-man..


When the leader sleeps, the soldier stays awake, and it’s the women who do the fighting. Gaddafi trusts his security to ladies only. The head of the Libyan Jamahiriya has a total of 300-400 girls on his security detail. According to the official story, all of them are virgins. Selection is done by Gaddafi himself. This whim has an explanation for it: In ancient times, they believed that the best guards were either virgins or lesbians, the underlying belief being that they could sense threats, the so-called “wind of death.”




The title is misleading... Chavez did not openly support Gaddafi. He warned of a possible invasion of Libya (as did F.Castro) and this is the actual possibility.

He also says: "Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya."
Aren't these the EXACT slogans the anti-Gaddafi protesters are chanting?

I know that many here dislike Chavez, but do not resort to such practices as this one.


Take a look at the article that freepalestine posted.

[Queercommie Girl]

When the leader sleeps, the soldier stays awake, and it’s the women who do the fighting.


This in itself is not sexism. There is nothing wrong IMO with women doing the fighting instead of the men in principle.

It's definitely class oppression though, since the bodyguards are employed workers serving their bourgeois leader.

But for me, it would be the same kind of oppression if the bodyguards were all men.



According to the official story, all of them are virgins. Selection is done by Gaddafi himself. This whim has an explanation for it: In ancient times, they believed that the best guards were either virgins or lesbians, the underlying belief being that they could sense threats, the so-called “wind of death.”


This seems to be a version of sexism mixed with feudal superstition.

But in principle, I think socialists should encourage women to join the army and the police etc. It would help to break-down the gender stereotype that "women are the weaker sex" and certain careers are not suitable for women.

[Dimmu]

But in principle, I think socialists should encourage women to join the army and the police etc. It would help to break-down the gender stereotype that "women are the weaker sex" and certain careers are not suitable for women.

I think we can agree on this. :)

[Manic Impressive]

When facing a powerful enemy sometimes you have to take all the help you can get, even if it's from people you would rather have nothing to do with. Chavez's relationship with Gaddafi and Ahmedinejad is just a marriage of convenience and as others have said he hasn't actually voiced support for him or his actions.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/truman_3.jpg
p.s. lol @ Chavez using twitter

[Ravachol]

But in principle, I think socialists should encourage women to join the army and the police etc.

lolwut

[Devrim]

Actually i am not talking about wearing suits or not.. I am talking about how Gaddafi dresses like a rich SOB while wearing layers of layers of makeup.. Now thats bourgeois..

He dresses like the rich because he is rich. He isn't like the bourgeoise. He is the bourgeois head of a capitalist state. What in this makes him mad though?

Devrim

[Manic Impressive]

But in principle, I think socialists should encourage women to join the army and the police etc. It would help to break-down the gender stereotype that "women are the weaker sex" and certain careers are not suitable for women.
Wait........WHAT!?!?!

Socialists should not be encouraging anyone to become a class traitor. I think you might have meant bourgeois feminists.

[Queercommie Girl]

lolwut

Well, I think the lower ranks of the police and the army can be won over to the side of the working class. It's a mistake to reject them completely.

[Queercommie Girl]

Wait........WHAT!?!?!

Socialists should not be encouraging anyone to become a class traitor. I think you might have meant bourgeois feminists.

No, you are wrong.

Lower ranking soldiers and police officers, as well as prison officers, are technically working class.

A soldier is not a class traitor.

But in any case, the primary point I was making is that socialists should encourage women to join "traditional male jobs". If you don't like the example of the police/army, how about say worker's militias?

[Kotze]

But in principle, I think socialists should encourage women to join the army and the police etc. It would help to break-down the gender stereotype that "women are the weaker sex" and certain careers are not suitable for women.This bodyguard thing with that guy is about the worst hook you can have for such a demand. Hey, everybody, let's talk about empowerment! Have you heard about that famous leader with his all-female guard of 200 virgins? >_<

Back on topic: Let's have a reality-based approach here: Hugo's "support" right now amounts to what? Is the government of Venezuela now willing to send weapons or troops or to even grant asylum? Look out for these things. It's not important when politicians say they are deeply concerned about this or that.

[punisa]

Take a look at the article that freepalestine posted.

It's signed by Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh, not Chavez.

[Chambered Word]

No, you are wrong.

Lower ranking soldiers and police officers, as well as prison officers, are technically working class.

A soldier is not a class traitor.

But in any case, the primary point I was making is that socialists should encourage women to join "traditional male jobs". If you don't like the example of the police/army, how about say worker's militias?

I disagree. Socialists should not encourage anyone to become a police officer or soldier and we should discourage everyone equally regardless of gender. Women's oppression can only be fought successfully by dismantling the root cause of it - capitalism. So it follows that we should not encourage class collaboration on the part of workers or the underclasses in the futile hope that society will become more accepting of women as strong. The material basis for sexism has to be removed and the left is not going to help realize such a goal by strengthening the state in any way. It's also important that we combat the view that more women in positions of power is somehow combatting sexism; this view only legitimizes sexism by constructing a false image of attitudes in society and measures the fight against it in terms of something completely arbitrary - after all, female capitalists still perform the same social role as male ones, and often rely on sexism just as much as any of their counterparts.

I don't agree with your analysis of the police as working class, either. It's important that we analyze social roles and power structures and not just the flow of wealth (who is paid a wage for their work, etc). The police are full-time defenders of private property and are paid to break up strikes, demonstrations and infiltrate communist organizations.

I was going to explore their role in the sense that they do not produce any real value in the economy, but then neither do soldiers. I'd be interested to hear what other comrades have to say on the matter.

[Queercommie Girl]

This bodyguard thing with that guy is about the worst hook you can have for such a demand. Hey, everybody, let's talk about empowerment! Have you heard about that famous leader with his all-female guard of 200 virgins? >_<


Well as I said I wasn't talking about this specifically, just that generally it's a good thing for women to join (for lack of a better word) violent jobs.



Back on topic: Let's have a reality-based approach here: Hugo's "support" right now amounts to what? Is the government of Venezuela now willing to send weapons or troops or to even grant asylum? Look out for these things. It's not important when politicians say they are deeply concerned about this or that.


It's mainly a matter of tactical diplomacy, IMO. It's like Cuba's support for China. Everyone knows China isn't really socialist anymore.

[Kiev Communard]

The rank-and-file police and soldiers, even the low-ranking officers, could (and historically were) won over to the revolutionary socialist cause in the past, but the institutions themselves as they exist now are unarguably devoted to the protection of the capitalist class power and therefore reactionary. In case of Libya, though, the discrimination Gaddafi used against the ordinary servicemen, as opposed to "elite" troops of his sons' notorious Security Battalions and mercenaries, may have been additional factor responsible for their rebelliousness.

[Red Bayonet]

If Chavez supports Quadaffi, then Chavez is as dingbat as Quadaffi is.

[Queercommie Girl]

I disagree. Socialists should not encourage anyone to become a police officer or soldier and we should discourage everyone equally regardless of gender.


A revolution can never be completely peaceful. As Mao Zedong said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. For a revolution, worker's militias, with violent armed power, is definitely required.



I don't agree with your analysis of the police as working class, either. It's important that we analyze social roles and power structures and not just the flow of wealth (who is paid a wage for their work, etc). The police are full-time defenders of private property and are paid to break up strikes, demonstrations and infiltrate communist organizations.
But if you look at the recent mass movements and revolutions in the Middle East, you would see that in both Egypt and Tunisia, many layers of the police and the army went over to the side of the people.

I generally agree with the analysis of the CWI that while police officers are clearly very different from civilian workers, the lower ranks of the police are not our "class enemy" and can certainly be won over to the side of the working class and socialism.



I was going to explore their role in the sense that they do not produce any real value in the economy, but then neither do soldiers. I'd be interested to hear what other comrades have to say on the matter.
It depends on what you mean by "productive". I reject the claim that only industry and agriculture are "productive", while services, communications, transportation, education, finance etc are not.

One should not favour industrial workers and agricultural labourers over cafe workers, telephonists, train drivers, teachers and bank workers.

[Manic Impressive]

A revolution can never be completely peaceful. As Mao Zedong said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. For a revolution, worker's militias, with violent armed power, is definitely required.
I could have sworn you were saying in another thread that parliamentary politics shouldn't be completely written off and that different courses of action will work in different countries.


But if you look at the recent mass movements and revolutions in the Middle East, you would see that in both Egypt and Tunisia, many layers of the police and the army went over to the side of the people. But the Egyptian army is mainly made up of conscripts doing national service. There is a huge difference in the loyalty of someone forced to serve and those who choose it as their occupation.


I generally agree with the analysis of the CWI that while police officers are clearly very different from civilian workers, the lower ranks of the police are not our "class enemy" and can certainly be won over to the side of the working class and socialism.The police will be the last to rebel, their job is to protect bourgeois interests and crush descent at home. While the armies job (at least where I live) is to further imperialism and to protect bourgeois interests abroad.


It depends on what you mean by "productive". I reject the claim that only industry and agriculture are "productive", while services, communications, transportation, education, finance etc are not.

One should not favour industrial workers and agricultural labourers over cafe workers, telephonists, train drivers, teachers and bank workers.
I don't think anyone is saying that, just that there is a distinction between workers and those who choose to act directly against the interests of the working class both domestic and international.

When I see an actuial flesh and blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on." George Orwell

[ZeroNowhere]

Feminism ist krieg.

But no, really, I don't see that encouraging people to join violent jobs, that is, jobs involving violence against the working class, is particularly anything that socialists want to do. Unless, of course, one holds that women joining the police will actually weaken it, in which case you have your own issues. 'Winning people over' (although that stinks of 'consciousness-raising' revisionism) is quite different from actively going and telling people to go and risk their lives (eg. in the army) to beat up workers in defence of a capitalist state.

[Queercommie Girl]

Feminism ist krieg.

But no, really, I don't see that encouraging people to join violent jobs, that is, jobs involving violence against the working class, is particularly anything that socialists want to do. Unless, of course, one holds that women joining the police will actually weaken it, in which case you have your own issues. 'Winning people over' (although that stinks of 'consciousness-raising' revisionism) is quite different from actively going and telling people to go and risk their lives (eg. in the army) to beat up workers in defence of a capitalist state.

There are violent "jobs" which fight for the working class, like say armed worker's militias.

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with "violent women".

"Winning people over" is not "revisionism". What other approach would you prefer, an elitist armed coup, or where a small minority of "vanguards" forcing their will upon the masses of workers?

Socialism can never be imposed from above. The emancipation of the working class is the job of the working class itself, and no-one else.

[Queercommie Girl]

I could have sworn you were saying in another thread that parliamentary politics shouldn't be completely written off and that different courses of action will work in different countries.


Yes, and how does that contradict with my points here at all? Both parliamentary and non-parliamentary approaches are required, both peaceful and violent methods must be considered.

But to think that a revolution can be "completely peaceful", is just too naive. Look at Allende's Chile. Chile actually had a semi-advanced economy, and was no poorer than many European countries.



But the Egyptian army is mainly made up of conscripts doing national service. There is a huge difference in the loyalty of someone forced to serve and those who choose it as their occupation.
I agree. It would be good to have more female conscripts though.



The police will be the last to rebel, their job is to protect bourgeois interests and crush descent at home. While the armies job (at least where I live) is to further imperialism and to protect bourgeois interests abroad.
Many grassroots police who are poor don't really care about protecting the capitalist system. There is no real loyalty. They are only in the job to put food on the table.

You really think every policeman out there joins the force because "they love the job"? :rolleyes:

[Sentinel]

It would seem to me like TC and Punisa are right, the Twitter statement doesn't imply support for Gaddafis deeds but is indeed very careful -- and pretty much says nothing of substance. It's definitely an exaggeration imo to from that statement draw the conclusion that Chavez would still be explicitly backing Gaddafi.

However, of course one would have hoped that both he and the Castro brothers had condemned Gaddafi by now.. Whatever agreements they had in the past may perhaps somehow have been -- in the eyes of parts of the left -- justified in the name of 'anti-imperialism', but the recent massacres really should be too much for anyone calling themselves a socialist.

But on the other hand it's a known fact since long ago that Venezuela and Cuba trade and deal with other extremely repressive states like Iran and China, so I'm not too hopeful. But yeah, let's see.

[Queercommie Girl]

you are kidding iseul?? the police etc were murdering protestors


Many soldiers and policemen were won over though.



cwi sounds as bad as swp. they are a class 'enemy'


Both have flaws, but I can't agree with your evaluation here. Sorry.

[The Red Next Door]

lolwut

In a marxist society.

[The Red Next Door]

But on the other hand it's a known fact since long ago that Venezuela and Cuba trade and deal with other extremely repressive states like Iran and China, so I'm not too hopeful. But yeah, let's see.



They can trade with the EU and the US, Oh I forgot. They hate them to pieces. Motherfucker, They have nobody else to trade with that support their cause.

How else are they are going to survive.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I find it interesting that so many are claiming that Chavez supports Gaddafi, when all he stated was that he was worried of the West fomenting an imperialist attack, and also said long live Libya's independence. Where in the fuck does any of this correlate with actually supporting Gaddafi? Because mainstream media state he is due to saying long live Libya's independence? Of course they'll say that's him supporting Gaddafi, because really, the mainstream media operate under the interests of the Western imperialists and the West does not want to see an independent Libya!

[Fulanito de Tal]

Everyone that think Chavez's statement backs Gaddafi needs a five minute time-out to think about where their jump in logic occurred.

[Blackscare]

Lets try to keep this on-topic everyone. :)


It's abundantly clear that Chavez was not endorsing Libya. You all need to grow up, because I know that you're intelligent enough to read two lines of a twitter post correctly.

[Devrim]

If Chavez supports Quadaffi, then Chavez is as dingbat as Quadaffi is.

I think that this typifying Gaddafi as 'crazy' is just echoing the bourgeoise media. It is like the 'mad mullahs' in Iran in '79. He has been in power for 42 years. One would think that it would require at least a little sanity.

Of course as part of the demonize 'enemies of the West' campaign it plays out well.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this thread serious? OP, are you seriously trying to flame? I mean, two lines on a twitter page doesn't constitute support for Gadaffi.

I am sure Chavez takes the logical position in knowing that there is a tendency for the West to intervene when there is oil involved and hopes for the Libyan people to secure their independence.

[The Red Next Door]

Just because the US is an ally of someone, does not means; in order to serve themselves. They will try and fuck them over just to get more of what, they are giving her. You have to remember America is a greedy ***** and would even steal from so called friends.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Even if Chavez himself doesn't explicitly support Gaddhafi, there have been a bunch of absurd articles on VTV, Aporrea and RNV that basically outright do. They all reference a "News blockade" to question the veracity of the reporting by "Imperialist" outlets (they imply it is the fault of "Imperialists" when it is the fault of Gaddhafi who does not allow a free press), they cast aspersions about the class interests of the protesters, and they imply that this is all a plot by the CIA and saw one article outright suggesting that this was a "zionist conspiracy" (ugh, whenever I see anti-semitism in venezuela it makes me cringe).

Then again, I've also seen some anti-gaddhafi articles on aporrea. but it seems like state media is pretty much implicitly pro-gaddhafi.

I think one can worry about Imperialism and NATO intervention WITHOUT questioning the protesters and their motives, and without supporting a bedouin wannabe emperor of africa.

[TwoSevensClash]

Lets try to keep this on-topic everyone. :)


It's abundantly clear that Chavez was not endorsing Libya. You all need to grow up, because I know that you're intelligent enough to read two lines of a twitter post correctly.

um no. Te tweet said
Gaddafi is facing a civil war.

Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya.

Gaddafi is facing a civil war he said. If he was supporting Libya in general he would of said "Libya is facing a civil war" not Gaddafi is facing a civil war. The Gaddafi is facing civil war implies sympathy.

[The Red Next Door]

Even if Chavez himself doesn't explicitly support Gaddhafi, there have been a bunch of absurd articles on VTV, Aporrea and RNV that basically outright do. They all reference a "News blockade" to question the veracity of the reporting by "Imperialist" outlets (they imply it is the fault of "Imperialists" when it is the fault of Gaddhafi who does not allow a free press), they cast aspersions about the class interests of the protesters, and they imply that this is all a plot by the CIA and saw one article outright suggesting that this was a "zionist conspiracy" (ugh, whenever I see anti-semitism in venezuela it makes me cringe).

Then again, I've also seen some anti-gaddhafi articles on aporrea. but it seems like state media is pretty much implicitly pro-gaddhafi.

I think one can worry about Imperialism and NATO intervention WITHOUT questioning the protesters and their motives, and without supporting a bedouin wannabe emperor of africa.

He said Zionist, not Jewish. it is not anti semeticism

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

He said Zionist, not Jewish. it is not anti semeticism

Saying "Zionists oppress Palestinians" isn't antisemitic

Saying "Zionists are responsible for XXX or YYY international conspiracy that is happening nowhere near Israel" is antisemitic.

Zionism means Jewish Nationalism. Now, Zionism clearly is a real force with real world impacts. But to attribute any random conspiracy to "Zionists" without any clear evidence is antisemitic because it plays on old tropes about how Jews conspire around the world. We know Israel and Libya did not get along historically, but there is no reason at all to think that Israel somehow directed this unrest, it's an insult both to Jews and the protesters. If one does, it's probably because they hold preconceived notions about the Jewish people.

If this was Gaza, it would make sense to discuss Zionism. If this was AIPAC lobbying to protect Israel it would make sense to discuss Zionism. But it's absurd to basically suppose with no evidence whatsoever that zionists were behind all of the unrest there.

[The Vegan Marxist]

um no. Te tweet said
Gaddafi is facing a civil war.

Long live Libya. Long live the independence of Libya.

Gaddafi is facing a civil war he said. If he was supporting Libya in general he would of said "Libya is facing a civil war" not Gaddafi is facing a civil war. The Gaddafi is facing civil war implies sympathy.

:thumbdown:

Gaddafi, whether you like it or not, is the leader of Libya. And he, ultimately, is who's in charge over the military and those who support him fighting the civil war are loyal to Gaddafi and will follow his word. It really does rest on what Gaddafi does. He can flee the country and leave it in chaos, he can fight back against the protesters, which would only induce more chaos, or he can call off the military and tell those loyal to him to step down.

Gaddafi is facing a civil war. That's a fact! It doesn't imply that anyone who presents this fact is a supporter of Gaddafi. Let's not kid ourselves here.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Saying "Zionists oppress Palestinians" isn't antisemitic

Saying "Zionists are responsible for XXX or YYY international conspiracy that is happening nowhere near Israel" is antisemitic.

Zionism means Jewish Nationalism. Now, Zionism clearly is a real force with real world impacts. But to attribute any random conspiracy to "Zionists" without any clear evidence is antisemitic because it plays on old tropes about how Jews conspire around the world. We know Israel and Libya did not get along historically, but there is no reason at all to think that Israel somehow directed this unrest, it's an insult both to Jews and the protesters. If one does, it's probably because they hold preconceived notions about the Jewish people.

If this was Gaza, it would make sense to discuss Zionism. If this was AIPAC lobbying to protect Israel it would make sense to discuss Zionism. But it's absurd to basically suppose with no evidence whatsoever that zionists were behind all of the unrest there.

"Zionist conspiracy" doesn't imply anti-semitism. Conspiracy: an act done by more than one person (possibly an entire govt.) If the State of Israel is conducting imperial matters against Palestinians or against another State, and try to cover it up, that, my friend, IS a conspiracy!

[gorillafuck]

Why would a country like Libya who has made BP fall in love with it be worried about being invaded for oil?:confused:

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why would a country like Libya who has made BP fall in love with it be worried about being invaded for oil?:confused:

:confused:

Because the oil supply is in danger! With Gaddafi threatening to destroy (http://presstv.com/detail/166687.html) said oil supply, or the fact that the protesters might come in control over the oil supply, meaning the US will no longer hold any interests over said oil supply. Why wouldn't the US come barging in to intervene and save that oil supply? lol

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

could you give links etc .also until today no journos have been allowed into libya-and as far as i know u.s. citizens are barred to enter that country.so the reporting has not been like what was seen in egypt/tunisia..
Damnit, I linked another article from RNV and put a post on revleft about it, but the fucking link just goes to the homepage. I think this might have been the article I saw, and it was their "leading article". Perhaps they took it down because someone from their foreign ministry/media ministry yelled at them for putting out such a prejudicial article?

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.aporrea.org/&ei=jvFnTfzzBonCsAPlpq3kCA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Daporrea%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DT12%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns

EDIT: ok you can't link directly to google translate, go to aporrea and search for the article" Kadafi aborted CIA coup and now suffers from international isolation"

There are some issues I think using Google Translate to link, so its half in spanish half in english (no clue why)


he regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi crushed in blood and fire the CIA coup (mounted in the "popular revolt"), controls most of Libyan territory (although there are still pockets of armed rebellion in the wake) and faces a second phase, an operation of international isolation and an attempt internal division of their forces in a scenario of economic and social paralysis.




Ese es el verdadero título desarrollado de los hechos que están sucediendo en Libia, silenciados y deformados por la prensa internacional, parte funcional y operativa del eje sionista USA-UE-Israel en su estrategia de apoderamiento de petróleo y recursos estratégicos en los países islámicos situados en el "eje del mal".
That is the real title developed for the events that are happening in Libya, silenced and distorted by the international press, functional and operational part of the Zionist axis USA-EU-Israel in its strategy of seizing oil and strategic resources in Islamic countries located in the "axis of evil."



Según la prensa internacional, el jefe libio controla el grueso de su ejército, sus fuerzas policiales , y los mukhabarat (servicios de seguridad), y mantiene el mando sobre el movimiento llamado Comité Revolucionario, que monitorea y supervisa las actividades represivas del régimen contra sus enemigos internos.
According to the international press, the Libyan leader controls the bulk of his army, their police forces and the Mukhabarat (security services), and maintains control over the movement called the Revolutionary Committee, which monitors and oversees the regime's repressive activities against their internal enemies.



Dentro de este dispositivo represivo se inserta el Batallón Disuasivo, la conocida Brigada 32, que opera en Ouezzane, cerca de la frontera con Túnez que es comandada por uno de los hijos de Gadafi, Khemis, entrenada para lidiar con revueltas dentro del país.
Within this repressive device inserted Deterrent Battalion, the famous Brigade 32, which operates in Ouezzane, near the border with Tunisia, which is commanded by a son of Gaddafi, Khemis, trained to deal with riots in the country.


También se integra la Legión Islámica, creada en los años 80 por musulmanes provenientes de Sahel, señalada por los opositores como integrada por "mercenarios extranjeros" .
It also integrates the Islamic Legion, created in the 80 Muslim Sahel from, marked by opponents as consisting of "foreign mercenaries."


"El régimen, en resumen, tiene una gama de mecanismos de represión a su disposición y en el pasado nunca ha mostrado titubeos en responder con brutalidad a la menor señal de protestas", subraya la cadena británica BBC.La misma prensa internacional que protegió y calló las masacres de Israel en Gaza y en Líbano, que silencia a diario los genocidios de EEUU y la "alianza occidental; en Afganistán, Irak, Pakistán y las zonas petroleras del Cuerno de África, no ahorra munición pesada para condenar el "brutal genocidio" de Kadafi contra su pueblo.
"The regime, in short, has a range of enforcement mechanisms at their disposal and in the past has never shown hesitation to respond to brutality at the slightest sign of protest," says the BBC BBC.La same international press that protected and Israel stopped the massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, which mutes daily U.S. genocide and the "Western alliance, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the oil areas in the Horn of Africa, not save heavy ammunition to condemn the" brutal genocide "Gaddafi against his people.

Que, en realidad no es el "pueblo" libio en su conjunto, sino grupos operativos que motorizan las revueltas, armados, entrenados y financiados por la CIA, el Mossad israelí y los servicios "aliados" de Europa.
That's not really the "people" Libya as a whole, but task forces that drive the riots, armed, trained and financed by the CIA, the Israeli Mossad and services "allies" in Europe.


"El líder libio Muammar Kadafi se aferró al poder el martes al contar con el apoyo cerrado de un ejército leal que se hizo con el control de la capital, en un momento en que una parte importante del este del país parecía haber caído bajo el control de la oposición", señala The Wall Street Journal el vocero financiero del Imperio USA.
"Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi clung to power on Tuesday to have the support of a loyal army closed that took control of the capital, at a time when an important part of this country seemed to have fallen under the control of the opposition, "says The Wall Street Journal spokesman USA Empire Financial.


La información es coincidente con la de las agencias y cadenas internacionales sionistas (parte de la operación golpista contra Kadafi), quienes coinciden en que el "genocida" libio aplastó "a sangre y fuego" a las manifestaciones en su contra y se replegó bajo el manto del poder militar.
The information is consistent with the agency and international chains Zionists (part of the operation coup against Kadafi) who agree that the "genocide" Libyan crushed "blood and fire" demonstrations against him and fell back under the mantle of military power.


Si consideramos que Libia está cerrada y blindada, y que los titulares y contenidos de la prensa internacional sólo están alimentados por fuentes de la sedición, la conclusión es obvia: Kadafi abortó, exterminó de cuajo, la operación relámpago en su contra utilizando un poder de fuego indiscriminado contra la revuelta callejera.
If we consider that Libya is closed and shielded, and content holders and international media are only fed by sources of sedition, the conclusion is obvious: Kadafi aborted, exterminated by the roots, the lightning operation against using a power indiscriminate fire on the street revolt.


Y las apreciaciones de las usinas "rebeldes" infiltradas y motorizadas por CIA y la inteligencia occidental aliada (expresadas en la "información internacional") también son coincidentes.
And the findings of the factories "rebels" and motorized infiltrated by CIA and allied Western intelligence (expressed in "international information") are also coincident.


Salvo algunos grupos del ejercito "rebelados" en el Este, las fuerzas del régimen libio controlan el país, sumido en una profunda parálisis social y económica como consecuencia de la represión militar y los enfrentamientos armados.
Except some groups in the army "revolt" in the East, the Libyan regime's forces control the country plunged into a deep social and economic paralysis as a result of military repression and armed conflict.


La estrategia de "demonización"
The strategy of "demonization"



Y como sucede habitualmente en estas operaciones de derrocamiento de gobiernos (no "dóciles" al Imperio) disfrazadas de "protestas populares"(así pasó con los golpes fracasados de la "revolución naranja", o con la frustrada maniobra contra el régimen militar birmano) abortada la acción militar encubierta en las calles, comienza la segunda fase de la operación golpista: El aislamiento internacional y la "demonización" del régimen y/o de los lideres de los gobiernos que quedan en pie.
And as usual in these operations to overthrow governments (not "tame" the Empire) disguised as "protests" (as happened with the failed coup of the "orange revolution", or the failed move against the Burmese military regime) aborted covert military action in the streets, begins the second phase of the operation coup: The international isolation and the "demonization" of the regime and / or government leaders still standing.


Consecuentemente, Muammar Kadafi, que durante años mantuvo un "bajo perfil" y era elogiado por la prensa internacional como un "arrepentido" de su pasado antiimperialista, mientras abría el grifo petrolero a la voracidad sin limites de los pulpos petroleros occidentales, ahora pasó a ocupar el lugar de un "demonio genocida".
Consequently, Muammar Gaddafi, who for years maintained a "low profile" and was praised by the international press as a "sorry" for its past imperialism, as he opened the tap oil to the boundless greed of Western oil conglomerates, now became take the place of a "demon genocide."


Hay una cuestión verificable y estadística: La prensa internacional, sus analistas superficiales vaciados de cerebro estratégico, no analizan objetivamente los hechos que están sucediendo en Libia.
There is a verifiable and statistical question: The international press, with analysts strategic brain surface casts, not objectively analyze the facts happening in Libya.
Solo se limitan a"comentar" los titulares escritos por las usinas golpistas (las únicas fuentes existentes) ya proclamar consignas "demonizadoras" del jefe del régimen libio.
Only limited to "discuss" the owners written by coup plants (the only existing sources) and slogans proclaiming "demonizing" the head of the Libyan regime.


Y ante el hecho consumado de una acción relámpago para derrocarlo en las calles, Kadafi hizo lo que cualquier dictador militar de 40 años en el poder haría para preservar su vida y su poder: Exterminar militarmente la revuelta organizada para evitar el contagio antes de que sea tarde.
And before the fait accompli of a lightning attack to topple in the streets, Kadafi did what any military dictator 40 years in power would do to preserve his life and his power: Exterminate militarily organized revolt to prevent infection before it later.


En la lógica de la acción reacción, y sin entrar en falsos moralismos de idealización, Washington y la CIA, infiltrando y movilizando grupos de protestas callejeras, le armaron un golpe de estado para derrocarlo y el presidente libio lo aplastó sin miramientos con su aparato militar.
In the logic of action reaction, and without going into false moralism of idealization, Washington and the CIA, infiltrating groups and mobilize street protests, he put together a coup to overthrow him and the Libyan leader ruthlessly crushed him with its military .
La primera fase fracasó.
The first phase failed.


Ahora, la fase que sigue, la operación de aislamiento y condena internacional al régimen de Kadafi, es un procedimiento calcado, una acción de manual.
Now, the phase that follows, the operation of isolation and international condemnation of the regime of Gaddafi, is a process modeled, a manual action.


Incluso la izquierda más "civilizada" y sus teóricos, adosados a la ideología"democrática" del sistema de dominio imperial capitalista, se prende a las "condenas" internacionales digitadas por el eje USA-UE-Israel.
Even the left more "civilized" and its theoretical ideology attached to the "democratic" system of capitalist imperial rule, it turns to "convictions" international typed by the axis USA-EU-Israel.


La ONU, los gobiernos mundiales y las organizaciones internacionales que (salvo pocas excepciones) legitiman con su silencio operaciones militares diarias de genocidio en masa de civiles en Medio Oriente, África y Asia, levantan sus voces indignadas para condenar la "masacre del dictador libio" .
The UN, world governments and international organizations (with few exceptions) with their silence legitimate military operations daily mass genocide of civilians in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, raising their voices indignation to condemn the "slaughter of Libyan dictator" .

Ya sucedió en todos los escenarios de las fracasadas "revoluciones naranja", en las "rebeliones budistas" del sudeste asiático, o en las "rebeliones reformistas" de Irán motorizadas para derrocar al régimen de los ayatolas desde adentro.
It happened in all stages of the failed "orange revolutions" in the "Buddhist rebellions" in Southeast Asia, or the "rebellions reformers" in Iran motorized to overthrow the regime of the ayatollahs from within.


Tras el armado de operaciones de "revuelta popular" mediante infiltraciones en grupos opositores locales, en Libia están utilizando un modelo de "iraquización" militar y social orientado a debilitar internamente al régimen de Kadafi .
After the armed operations "popular uprising" by local infiltration of opposition groups in Libya are using a model of "Iraqization" social-oriented military and to weaken the regime of Gaddafi internally.


Fracasada la operación, ahora quieren dividir a las fuerzas armadas libias controladas por Kadafi e iniciar un proceso de aislamiento que desemboque en un régimen de bloqueo y de sanciones internacionales contra el país petrolero.
Operation failed, now they want to divide the Libyan armed forces controlled by Kadafi and initiate a process of isolation that leads to a regime of international sanctions and blockade against the country's oil.


Objetivamente en Libia no hay una "revuelta popular" ingenua contra Kadafi, sino una acción callejera para derrocar a su régimen desde adentro motorizada por la CIA y el Mossad israelí que siempre actúan juntos, como hermanos simbióticos.
Libya objectively there is a "popular uprising" against Kadafi naive but street action to topple his regime from power in the CIA and Israeli Mossad always act together as brothers symbiotic.


Se lo hicieron en su momento a Saddam Hussein, y siempre fracasaron, dado que el presidente iraquí ahogaba esa movidas internas a sangre y fuego.
It did at the time of Saddam Hussein, and always failed, because the Iraqi leader that moves internal drowned in blood and fire.
Razón por la cual, la logia imperial USA se vio obligada a invadir Irak para derrocarlo.
Reason, the U.S. imperial lodge was forced to invade Iraq to overthrow him.


Salvada distancias y escenarios, lo que está pasando con Kadafi en Libia tiene muchas similitudes con el Irak de Saddam Hussein.
Saved distances and scenarios, what is happening with Kadafi in Libya has many similarities with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.


El jefe libio, ahogó la sublevación utilizando poder de fuego de alto espectro.
The Libyan leader, drowned the rebellion by using high-fire power spectrum.
Cerró y blindó militarmente a su país, puso un candado a la información de la prensa internacional sionista y puso en marcha una limpieza militar, una operación de cirugía mayor, contra las células operativas del levantamiento.
Closed, and shielded his country militarily, put a lock on the international press reports Zionist and launched a military cleaning, a major surgery, against the rising operational cells.


Es lo que hicieron algunos regímenes pro-rusos cuando abortaron en sus países la "revolución naranja".
This is what made some pro-Russian regimes in their countries where abortions "orange revolution."


En el terreno de la acción militar, Kadafi exterminó la acción relámpago para derrocarlo desde adentro.
In the field of military action, action flash exterminated Kadafi to overthrow from within.

Ahora deberá resistir a otro frente de guerra por otras vías: Las operaciones diplomáticas y la acción mediática internacional para estrangular económicamente a su régimen.
Now you should resist another front of war by other means: diplomatic operations and international media action economically strangle his regime.

Una guerra donde el petróleo libio, puede servirle a Kadafi como carta de triunfo para dividir al eje sionista USA-UE e impedir una acción conjunta en su contra.
A war where the Libyan oil can serve as a trump card Kadafi to split the Zionist USA-EU axis and prevent joint action against him.

Esto es solo el comienzo.
This is just the beginning.
As for the "reporting", that's what I'm saying, there's reference of the fact that reporters don't have a good image of what's going on in Libya, but they sort of overlook why, (the nature of Gaddhafi's police state).


the first part of that i agree with...as for the second part whats with the race overtones? I didn't mean to imply anything wrong with Bedouins at all, but his whole persona seems to be an implicit or explicit reference to Bedouin culture. It's like if the president of Germany was from Saxony and seemed to build a persona that constantly references that personal ethnic heritage.

[Artemis3]

this was a "zionist conspiracy" (ugh, whenever I see anti-semitism in venezuela it makes me cringe).

Then again, I've also seen some anti-gaddhafi articles on aporrea. but it seems like state media is pretty much implicitly pro-gaddhafi.

Cringe forever because anti Zionism is not anti semitism. It might even be pro semitism to be anti Zionist as it serves a reminder to follow their own scripture and, STAY THE HELL OUT of the promised land like God commanded (see Neturei Karta).

Aporrea is not a state media but I have heard the same pattern in opinion debate in Radio del Sur, which IS state sponsored. And i don't think this is about supporting an "evil dictator", more about supporting Libya's self determination. We also doubt many "news" as they are clearly biased towards someones advantage, not the people.

Been bitten too much by imperialist media lies i don't trust news "feed" a priori. We have serious doubts there have been any air involvement against protesters, which you assume as a fact and others quote this as a reason for foreign powers to intervene...

I hate media lies and manipulation the most, so yes, i like watching both (or more) sides into anything. Side with the people, but not at the expense of their freedom.., and no, changing their master (or being able to "vote" for him) won't do.

I would love to see these protests spread for real into America, that would force imperialists to divert their attention into home matters and leave the world alone as it should for revolutions to succeed.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As I said, anti zionism in theory has nothing to do with antisemitism, when there is a clear, empirical link between Israeli self-interest, Israeli state-action, and the rhetoric of pro-Israel ideologues.

But if there is no established link at all between the zionists and the question in problem, it does strike me as antisemitic. With no evidence that Israel is in any way involved, anti-zionism is tiresome and out of place, and surely based on some presuppositions about the nature of the Jewish people.

[gorillafuck]

:confused:

Because the oil supply is in danger! With Gaddafi threatening to destroy (http://presstv.com/detail/166687.html) said oil supply, or the fact that the protesters might come in control over the oil supply, meaning the US will no longer hold any interests over said oil supply. Why wouldn't the US come barging in to intervene and save that oil supply? lolWell yes the US is going to try to influence the events. They try to influence all events like this. But why is imperialist intervention a particular concern for Libya moreso than other Arab nations in revolt?

Also, as of now there are no indicators that the US will invade. It would be problematic with the US Army already having problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is stretched very far out.

[bricolage]

It seems strange for people to be foaming at the mouths declaring it ridiculous that Chavez could be seen to be supporting Gaddafi when he has a history of close co-operation with him, referring to him as a 'friend and brother'. Twitter messages don't get lost in translation, you can't be misquoted and you have the option to be a clear or as unclear as you want. I think it's quite obvious Chavez is being deliberately vague here. If he is sticking with Gaddafi then he's playing geo-politics as you'd expect, if he's going against then he's a pretty bad friend... and brother.

[Chambered Word]

"Zionist conspiracy" doesn't imply anti-semitism. Conspiracy: an act done by more than one person (possibly an entire govt.) If the State of Israel is conducting imperial matters against Palestinians or against another State, and try to cover it up, that, my friend, IS a conspiracy!

For once, Zionists actually appear to be correct in slandering the left as anti-Semitic. We'll laugh at the neo-Nazis losing their minds over whatever ZOG/international Zionist conspiracy they believe in, but when a reformist government says it some of us actually take these claims into consideration. :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but there's no 'international Zionist conspiracy', the real force keeping Israel afloat is called US imperialism.


It seems strange for people to be foaming at the mouths declaring it ridiculous that Chavez could be seen to be supporting Gaddafi when he has a history of close co-operation with him, referring to him as a 'friend and brother'. Twitter messages don't get lost in translation, you can't be misquoted and you have the option to be a clear or as unclear as you want. I think it's quite obvious Chavez is being deliberately vague here. If he is sticking with Gaddafi then he's playing geo-politics as you'd expect, if he's going against then he's a pretty bad friend... and brother.

I agree. As Devrim pointed out earlier, Marxists should not be surprised.

To be honest I wasn't 100% sure that Chavez's tweets indicated clear support for Gaddafi. Anyway, what are RevLeft's thoughts on this?



WASHINGTON, DC – With the unrest in Libya (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#) and particularly with his recent public relations debacles (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=12nmi555o/*http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Qaddafi-I-Will-Die-a-Martyr-7057), leader Muammar Qaddafi is rapidly losing any remaining fans. Yet down in South America, apparently, a few stalwarts remain. Caracas daily El Universal reported (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=12kdcasn8/*http://www.eluniversal.com/2011/02/21/int_esp_chavez:-lo-que-es-b_21A5198971.shtml) that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez proclaimed his support for Qaddafi last night, claiming that "Qaddafi is to Libya as [Simon] Bolívar is to us." Simon Bolivar (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#) was involved in the liberation of much of Latin America from colonial rule. The superlatives didn't end there, Chavez calling Qaddafi a "revolutionary soldier," "a leader of of the Libyan revolution," and a "leader of all of Africa as well as Latin America (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#)."

Chavez and Qaddafi, both leaders of oil-rich nations, have had an unlikely relationship blossom between them in the past few years. El Universal reports that Chavez (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#) has visited Libya five times. Libya awarded Chavez with the "Qaddafi Human Rights Prize" in 2004 (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=11phcj5fq/*http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=2914). In March 2009, Qaddafi named a football stadium (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=13641k4rb/*http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0928/chavez-qaddafi-get-chummy-at-south-south-summit) in Benghazi after Chavez. On his end, Chavez made Qaddafi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#) the special guest at a conference between African and Latin American countries held on Venezuela's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070#) Isla Margarita later that year, where he also presented Qaddafi with a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword. Rumors were swirling (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=14pnkjrci/*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8339096/Libya-Colonel-Gaddafi-flees-to-Venezuela-as-cities-fall-to-protesters.html) as recently as last night that the Libyan strongman had made his way to Venezuela to seek shelter.

Fidel Castro also weighed in in the past day, penning (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/cm_atlantic/storytext/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070/40329157/SIG=125lgqih4/*http://www.granma.cu/espanol/reflexiones/22febrero-reflexiones.html) a column today Cuba's Granma, warning of Libya's appeal to the United States because of it's vast petroleum reserves. "For me it is absolutely evident that the United States is not worried about peace in Libya, and will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade this rich country maybe in a matter of hours or very few days," he wrote. Perhaps tellingly, though, while the two leaders have been allies at times, Castro was reticent with outright support for Qaddafi, noting that "we have to wait the necessary time to know with rigor how much is fact or lie."





http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110222/cm_atlantic/qaddafisfriendsinvenezuelaandcuba7070

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nice straw man article by Yahoo News you've got there Chambered Word. Let's see, the only thing that the article actually has on Chavez is the claim that he stated "Qaddafi is to Libya as [Simon] Bolívar is to us" last night. Well, you see, the problem with this is that it's a fallacious straw man. Want to know why? Because Chavez never stated that last night. Instead, he actually stated it two years ago when Gaddafi visited Chavez:


The Venezuelan leader has borrowed more than just ideas. In December, Mr. Chávez said he would give up Venezuela's presidential palace to people displaced by heavy flooding to move into a large Bedouin tent left him by Mr. Gadhafi after a visit to Caracas two years ago.

During that visit, Mr. Chávez also gave Mr. Gadhafi a jewel-encrusted replica of the sword of Simón Bolívar, Venezuela's revered founding father. "Simón Bolívar is for us Venezuelans what Moammar Gadhafi is for Libyans," he told Venezuelans at the time. "Viva Bolivar! Viva Gadhafi!"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166452254733490.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

So please don't post shit without actually confirming its validity next time. Thank you.

[Chambered Word]

You don't need to be bitter when I simply asked for others' opinions on it. While Chavez may have said these things in the past (and Yahoo is indeed full of shit), it's pretty clear whose side he is on.

Chavez has not made any condemnation of the massacres inflicted by Gaddafi on the protesters and has a long history of very good relations with him. In fact after the massacres he has said that he is a friend of Gaddafi and only says that he cannot support or applaud any action made by any friend of his (whereas in the past he was declaring Gaddafi to be the Simon Bolivar of the Arab world) (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://eud.com/2011/02/21/int_esp_chavez:-lo-que-es-b_21A5198971.shtml&ei=IvxoTfWBD4m0vgPlnJjbDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.eluniversal.com/2011/02/21/int_esp_chavez:-lo-que-es-b_21A5198971.shtml%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D 1717%26bih%3D807%26prmd%3Divns). Unsurprisingly, he's trying to defend Gaddafi by pointing out that the US (the world's greatest imperialist power) is also responsible for many wars and massacres themselves. Of course, all the so-called Marxists who see the world only in terms of imperialism vs small nations and not actually in terms of class will lap this up and cheer on Chavez for being such a staunch opponent of US imperialism.

Even Gaddafi's own 'anti-imperialism' is a wet dream promoted by Marcyites who even now continue to glorify that non-existant aspect of Gaddafi's reign : http://links.org.au/node/2179 He has even offered support to the US in the war on terror: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022504256.html

The Socialist Alliance in Australia have recently been taking down articles from the past in Green Left Weekly where they gave support to Libya. It just goes to demonstrate really how honest and principled these elements of the far-left really are. Hopefully in the time to come we'll see more (hopefully proletarian) popular movements embarassing them further.


So please don't post shit without actually confirming its validity next time. Thank you.

Agreed. :)

[Amphictyonis]

"Look at how he dresses..."

Do you mean by this he sometimes wears traditional clothes and not a suit. Look at other Arab countries. People do it. Do you think that the King of Saudi Arabia is mad?

"how he talks about himself..."

Gaddafi is actually quite a good speaker. It might get lost in translation, but he isn't terrible.

"and hes bodyguard is full of women.. :lol:"

Yes, so he surrounds himself with beautiful young women. So does Berlesconni. Nobody suggests he is 'mad'. Just a rich old man behaving how rich old men have a tendency to.

Devrim

If I were a rich old woman I'd wear a cape and a monocle. Some sort of death cane sword at my hip would do as well. The bareness...I'd make you all call me the bareness or Cruella de Vil. As far as Chavez I don't think he's huge on most people he 'supports' but has to do so in order to trade- Iran is another government he 'supports' and I suspect it has much to do with trade.

[TwoSevensClash]

:thumbdown:

Gaddafi, whether you like it or not, is the leader of Libya. And he, ultimately, is who's in charge over the military and those who support him fighting the civil war are loyal to Gaddafi and will follow his word. It really does rest on what Gaddafi does. He can flee the country and leave it in chaos, he can fight back against the protesters, which would only induce more chaos, or he can call off the military and tell those loyal to him to step down.

Gaddafi is facing a civil war. That's a fact! It doesn't imply that anyone who presents this fact is a supporter of Gaddafi. Let's not kid ourselves here.
The only one kidding themselves is you.

[RadioRaheem84]

Gaddafi just seems like a Milosevic to me. Nothing any real socialist should really support, but then again international intervention is something socialists should condemn even more.

NPR is already broadcasting random Libyans calling for "US help" and intervention.

Yahoo news (Reuters) is already saying that the UN might seek sanctions, arms embargo, and possible intervention to stop Gaddafi.

The situation is looking more and more grim.

[manic expression]

You don't need to be bitter when I simply asked for others' opinions on it. While Chavez may have said these things in the past (and Yahoo is indeed full of shit), it's pretty clear whose side he is on.
Except everyone here trying to prove that hasn't been able to do so in the slightest. Chavez's tweet didn't express support or sympathy for Gaddafi, it was about the independence of Libya and the fact that Gaddafi is essentially facing civil war. Some here are so frothing at the mouth to sling mud at socialists that they'll use anything as cover. That's all this is.

[Chambered Word]

Except everyone here trying to prove that hasn't been able to do so in the slightest. Chavez's tweet didn't express support or sympathy for Gaddafi, it was about the independence of Libya and the fact that Gaddafi is essentially facing civil war. Some here are so frothing at the mouth to sling mud at socialists that they'll use anything as cover. That's all this is.

The only time I made reference to Chavez's tweet was in my first post where I indicated that I didn't consider it very significant:


To be honest I wasn't 100% sure that Chavez's tweets indicated clear support for Gaddafi.

Don't let facts get in the way of strawmen though.

[TwoSevensClash]

I just read were it says Chavez said "I can't say that I support, or am in favor, or applaud all the decisions taken by any friend of mine in any part of the world, no, one is at a distance. But we do support the government of Libya,"

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFN2616789920110226

Ortega has given his full support
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/22/2079202/nicaragua-prez-call-gaddafi-to.html

[Chambered Word]

Even Green Left Weekly in Aus is now rushing to condemn Gaddafi's history of co-operating with the US: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46840

Where has the left-wing critique by Chavez been this whole time? :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

The only time I made reference to Chavez's tweet was in my first post where I indicated that I didn't consider it very significant:
And yet you feel you know enough to be sure of "where he stands". I'm only asking for some sort of proof of these assumptions, because so far there hasn't been any provided, even if you'd like to think so.


I just read were it says Chavez said "I can't say that I support, or am in favor, or applaud all the decisions taken by any friend of mine in any part of the world, no, one is at a distance. But we do support the government of Libya,"
Maybe it's just me, but it might be wise to hold judgment until Chavez is able to truly outline how he views the situation in Libya beyond a few lines here and there. It's quite difficult and complicated and I think any position on it would be more nuanced than one tweet and a quick quote.

[Rafiq]

When facing a powerful enemy sometimes you have to take all the help you can get, even if it's from people you would rather have nothing to do with. Chavez's relationship with Gaddafi and Ahmedinejad is just a marriage of convenience and as others have said he hasn't actually voiced support for him or his actions.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/truman_3.jpg
p.s. lol @ Chavez using twitter


That's why real Socialists don't uphold Stalin.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

His alliance with Churchill and FDR was certainly more justified than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

How about "socialists" stop negotiating with "fascists"?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

His alliance with Churchill and FDR was certainly more justified than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

How about "socialists" stop negotiating with "fascists"?

Yeah, he should've just told the Nazis to go fuck themselves and then stood firm as the USSR suffered a joint German-Polish invasion while also in a much weaker defensive position, all the while with Britain, France, the USA etc. cheering on the fascists.

[Omsk]

Stalin had 2 choices.
if he made an alliance with Britain, he would end up fighting a war with Hitler over Poland.
+His army was still in shambles because of the purges in which alot of experienced comanders lost their lives.

if he made an alliance with Germany, he would get half of Poland, and time to prepare for the coming war with Germany.

Stalin said: ‘We got peace for our country for 18 months, which let us make military preparations.
After Munich, Stalin was convinced that Britain would break its promise to Poland. He was convinced that Britain would leave Russia fighting Hitler alone

[manic expression]

Stalin had 2 choices.
if he made an alliance with Britain, he would end up fighting a war with Hitler over Poland.
I don't disagree with your overall analysis, but Stalin actually tried that first. He was basically pleading to the British and French for an anti-Nazi alliance, and they told him to stuff it. It was only after this that the Soviet leadership began considering a non-aggression pact with Germany. Wherever you stand on Molotov-Ribbentrop, that has to be recognized.

[KC]

Yeah, he should've just told the Nazis to go fuck themselves and then stood firm as the USSR suffered a joint German-Polish invasion while also in a much weaker defensive position, all the while with Britain, France, the USA etc. cheering on the fascists.

Or the USSR could have not fucked up the German socialist movement through the ComIntern and Nazism never would've risen.

[Omsk]

Yes, the dimplomatic negotiations resulted in a failure,and i read that the British delay has a influential role in the failure.

[Kléber]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The revisionist Popular Front did not justify the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Five years of anti-fascist cheerleading (and betrayal of class struggle) did not make it okay to suddenly ally with the fascists. Only those with zero confidence in the working class can believe that we need the patronage of imperialist superpowers to make revolution.

Back on topic, if somebody said "Shimon Peres is facing a war. Long live Israel and its independence!" would anyone like to defend this statement as being in fact two completely disconnected statements, the first of which is just stating a fact, the second of which is just supporting the people of Israel and not their bourgeois government?

[Chambered Word]

And yet you feel you know enough to be sure of "where he stands". I'm only asking for some sort of proof of these assumptions, because so far there hasn't been any provided, even if you'd like to think so.


From his long history of support for Gaddafi under a the pretense of anti-imperialism, which has been totally false anyway, and refusal to condemn Gaddafi and his actions, yes, I think we can judge very well where Chavez stands.


Maybe it's just me, but it might be wise to hold judgment until Chavez is able to truly outline how he views the situation in Libya beyond a few lines here and there. It's quite difficult and complicated and I think any position on it would be more nuanced than one tweet and a quick quote.

He has had years and years to view the situation in Libya.

[manic expression]

Back on topic, if somebody said "Shimon Peres is facing a war. Long live Israel and its independence!" would anyone like to defend this statement as being in fact two completely disconnected statements, the first of which is just stating a fact, the second of which is just supporting the people of Israel and not their bourgeois government?
False equivalency. Israel is a settler state, it isn't a nation. Saying you support the "independence of Israel" is akin to saying you support the "independence of apartheid". It's nothing like saying you support the independence of Libya.


He has had years and years to view the situation in Libya
The "situation in Libya" has not been around for years and years. It's a nuanced, complex occurrence that is unfolding as we type. Trying to divine Chavez's views on it from past policy toward Libya is flatly absurd.

[RedSquare]

It's all about the Green Book (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Green_Book)

[el_chavista]

An ancestral, arcane tribal fight (http://www.revleft.com/vb/libyas-tribal-dynamics-t150761/index.html) is not the uprising of the masses the media want us to believe.
Who cares what tribe are you cheering on?

[Luís Henrique]

As for the bodyguards, its like you said has everything to do with sexism.. Do you really think that he uses them for protection?

If he doesn't, he should start thinking about it now.

... not that doing so would likely saving him, but...

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

I think if a guy has nothing but women on his bodyguard squad, he has a little more then protection in mind. I mean, he has to go out of his way to get an all woman protection force. Btw, I think Gaddafi is pretty crazy. He has the cult of personality he has set up going to his head. I'm also pretty sure he did a purge or two, that's a rule of thumb for me that something's not right. Anyways, whoo! Go protesters! I don't think the U.S. Will invade, it'd be terrible for public opinion. We needed an extremely pathos arguement to justify invading iraq and have people not rioting here, which was 9 11. We don't have one right now, also we're in the middle of a recession and can't handle another war on top of afghanistan and policing Iraq.

[b man]

This pro-Chavez, anti-"US imperialism" tribalism on the part of non-Venezuelans is outright silly. Yes, Chavez is supported by many ordinary Venezuelans because he has enacted various reforms aimed at helping the masses, long repressed. Good for him. So for foreigners like most on this forum, we should respect those policies as the choice of the Venezuelan people, not just revere one man.

His statements like the one comparing Kaddafi to Bolivar, admiring the political system of Belarus (!), etc. are absurd. No one should feel the need to defend them just because one might respect any policy of the Venezuelan government.

The same could be said for Lula and any other leader for that matter. Support the democratic policies, not the whims of one guy/girl which may be good, bad, right, wrong, whatever.

[Luís Henrique]

A few thoughts.

* Chávez's statements do not look like any kind of support. They look like an attempt to say nothing, or to say something that can be interpreted in any way, so that it does not sound compromising either way.

* Maduro, Venezuela's foreign minister, says that "they" are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya. I doubt it. A "western" intervention does not seem likely at this moment, and if anyone is creating conditions for it, is Gaddafy himself, whose resistance avoids a quick victory of the people.

* If the "West" decides to intervene, what should we exactly do? Decry it as an "intervention" in abstract, and come out as supporting a horrible regime that murders its citizens, while our enemies come out as defending the Libyan people from the slaughter? Decry it as an intervention against Gaddafy's "anti-imperialism", when they guy is not anti-imperialist at all? Or should we put the issue correctly, decrying any attempts to twart the Lybian revolution? Or, perhaps better, organising our own "intervention" against Gaddafy? Oh, I know. We don't have the means. We used to have them, though. How did we squander them? And, if we don't have the means to actually intervene, why not recognise it and stop pretending that our "support" or lack of thereof is meaningful?

* I doubt very much that Chávez actually "does business" with Libya or Iran. They all have (only) oil to sell; they won't be selling it to each others. What they have is a common interest to raise oil prices, which means they will try to co-ordinate efforts - or, if you prefer, they will have oligopolistic prices. Really, I don't expect this to become subordinate to political reasoning. At the same time, I doubt that Chávez will fail to recognise a new Libyan government as soon as it is formed, and to deny Gaddafy any kind of shelter, etc. He needs to be in good terms with those in charge in Libya, whomever they are.

* It is interesting to see people trying to make political points by posting photographs of politicians shaking hands. They mean nothing. Politicians shake hands with enemies, as a matter of fact. It is merely part of common manners. They shake hands today and bomb each others tomorrow, and they bomb each others today and shake hands tomorrow.

Gaddafy is facing a civil war. Indeed. Let's hope he looses, and, if possible, let's make something to that end.

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

An ancestral, arcane tribal fight (http://www.revleft.com/vb/libyas-tribal-dynamics-t150761/index.html) is not the uprising of the masses the media want us to believe.
Who cares what tribe are you cheering on?

Is it purely a coincidence that it's taking place during unrest in every other Arab state?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Sexism. Why can't women serve as bodyguards? :rolleyes:

In fact, why do you even necessarily imply that sexual interests must be involved? If he had a bodyguard full of men, you wouldn't say anything, and certainly won't suspect Quaddafi of being gay.

This kind of "psychological profiling" of political leaders is really just bourgeois non-sense and really has to go, whether it's applied to capitalist leaders, Stalinist leaders, or Gaddafi.

This is absurd.

Do you honestly believe that the most able bodyguards avaiable to the man were ALL women. Putting the reasons for this aside, I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of bodyguards were male.

Say, 90 percent of them? Although the number is probably higher. It would then seem extremely unlikely that the most suitable candiates for an outfit of bodyguards would ALL be female?

Consider that there are obivous ulterior motives to having a bodyguard of females (who i'm guessing, "concidentally" are all very beautiful..) your accusation of sexism seems totally off the wall to me.

[b man]

* Maduro, Venezuela's foreign minister, says that "they" are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya. I doubt it. A "western" intervention does not seem likely at this moment, and if anyone is creating conditions for it, is Gaddafy himself, whose resistance avoids a quick victory of the people.

This is particularly absurd given that Kaddafi himself is chiefly demonizing al-Qaeda as the "troublemaker" behind the uprising (doesn't take a genius to figure out why).

[pastradamus]

So if a man becomes a bodyguard it's because he is good at his job.

But if a woman becomes a bodyguard then it must be because she is fetishised as a sex symbol.

I dont think thats what he was meant at all Iseul. But to pitch in - People should get choosen for a job on the basis of their skills and experience and not their status as a Man or Woman.


Quaddafi may indeed have sexist views. But this doesn't make the institution of "women being bodyguards" itself abnormal at all.

Also, suppose Quaddafi is really gay and has a bodyguard full of handsome, fit men. Would you also consider these men to be discriminated against in the same way as the female bodyguards he has at the moment, given that it's probably also just based on homosexual "sexual interests"?What?

Look, Gadaffi surrounds himself with over 40 female bodyguards, many of whom are absolutely beautiful looking (as you can see in the attached image). I agree in principle with what your saying but what Im saying is that the man purposely picks women to be his bodyguards and not men. The odds of finding 40 beautiful-looking female bodyguards is extremely low, so its my belief that he picked them on purpose-on the basis that they were good-looking women. The real question is why he picked all these female bodyguards and not the fact that he has them protecting him. In my opinion its because of their appearence and the fact that they are known as "the amazonian guard" oozes sexism.http://lh3.ggpht.com/_I-D83k7iK0A/THvRVSwaVCI/AAAAAAAAA9o/aY7g6iZkzTI/beautiful%2520sexy%2520Gaddafi%27s%2520Women%2520a mazons%25203_thumb%255B2%255D.jpg

[dearest chuck]

since hezbollah has expressed their support (http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=3411&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1) for the libyan freedom fighters or demonstrators or whatever, it is safe to assume the islamic republic of iran would also not be sad to see gaddafi go.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Ahmadinejad himself criticized Gaddhafi and called him a murderer of his own people

[The Red Next Door]

This pro-Chavez, anti-"US imperialism" tribalism on the part of non-Venezuelans is outright silly. Yes, Chavez is supported by many ordinary Venezuelans because he has enacted various reforms aimed at helping the masses, long repressed. Good for him. So for foreigners like most on this forum, we should respect those policies as the choice of the Venezuelan people, not just revere one man.

His statements like the one comparing Kaddafi to Bolivar, admiring the political system of Belarus (!), etc. are absurd. No one should feel the need to defend them just because one might respect any policy of the Venezuelan government.

The same could be said for Lula and any other leader for that matter. Support the democratic policies, not the whims of one guy/girl which may be good, bad, right, wrong, whatever.


Liberal cough cough...cough liberal...cough... Moveon.org. Go to it.

[Sentinel]

They can trade with the EU and the US, Oh I forgot.

Yes, indeed they can, the EU is one of Cuba's largest trading partners. Link (http://www.eeas.europa.eu/cuba/index_en.htm) And while the US doesn't trade with Cuba, it's heavily dependent of Venezuelan oil. Link (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm#relations) Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why the US is so pissed off about Chavez in the first place.

And even if Iran and China were the only trading partners of these countries, which isn't the case, they certainly could do more to condemn the atrocities taking place. Moreover, many suspect that Raul Castro may be planning to implement a similar economic system as in China on Cuba soon.

Not good.


They hate them to pieces. Motherfucker, They have nobody else to trade with that support their cause.

How else are they are going to survive. Your flame has been reported. :)

[Chambered Word]

The "situation in Libya" has not been around for years and years. It's a nuanced, complex occurrence that is unfolding as we type. Trying to divine Chavez's views on it from past policy toward Libya is flatly absurd.

Up until the recent violence he has supported Libya. Did the way Libyan society was organized suddenly change the day that Gaddafi sent the military to slaughter protesters? Did Gaddafi begin aiding imperialism that very day? I don't think so. Even if he does finally condemn Gaddafi's rule, something anyone who supported the international working class would have at least done when he started bombing people in the streets, I'm not going to take his word for it when he places himself on the side of the Libyan workers because he's supported the very same regime that murdered hundreds of them and willingly tried to co-operate with the US. Don't try to tell me that circumstances have changed, because Gaddafi's co-operation with the US is not news at all and he has been in the same position of power over the Libyan state that meant he had to suppress the uprisings successfully or face overthrow.

[manic expression]

Up until the recent violence he has supported Libya. Did the way Libyan society was organized suddenly change the day that Gaddafi sent the military to slaughter protesters? Did Gaddafi begin aiding imperialism that very day? I don't think so. Even if he does finally condemn Gaddafi's rule, something anyone who supported the international working class would have at least done when he started bombing people in the streets, I'm not going to take his word for it when he places himself on the side of the Libyan workers because he's supported the very same regime that murdered hundreds of them and willingly tried to co-operate with the US. Don't try to tell me that circumstances have changed, because Gaddafi's co-operation with the US is not news at all and he has been in the same position of power over the Libyan state that meant he had to suppress the uprisings successfully or face overthrow.
None of those assumptions you make are part of my argument. Libyan society was and is hardly a simplistic thing, and so a nuanced position is certainly appropriate. Gaddafi cooperated with the US, but also has a history of not cooperating with the US; Gaddafi is close to imperialism, but is not reliant on imperialism for his own position. Recent events have complicated matters further, and so it is only right that Chavez reiterate his support for Libyan independence, as well as recognize the fact that Gaddafi is facing civil war. Nothing in those two statements can be criticized from a progressive, revolutionary point of view.

Of course, you're projecting past Venezuelan policy toward Libya as the sum and total of Chavez's views on a recent development. That is simply ridiculous, no matter how much righteous indignation you attempt to inject into your arguments.

[Chambered Word]

None of those assumptions you make are part of my argument. Libyan society was and is hardly a simplistic thing, and so a nuanced position is certainly appropriate. Gaddafi cooperated with the US, but also has a history of not cooperating with the US; Gaddafi is close to imperialism, but is not reliant on imperialism for his own position.

He was never reliant on imperialism because he was a member and the figurehead of a dictatorial ruling class.


Recent events have complicated matters further, and so it is only right that Chavez reiterate his support for Libyan independence, as well as recognize the fact that Gaddafi is facing civil war. Nothing in those two statements can be criticized from a progressive, revolutionary point of view.

This is the second time you've made this strawman. I never made an argument regarding his tweet, nor should I expect to ever - it's not very significant compared to what I've already discussed.


Of course, you're projecting past Venezuelan policy toward Libya as the sum and total of Chavez's views on a recent development.

Actually, I already explored how Chavez has recently been reacting towards the situation in Libya. It sounds like you want me to make ahistorical arguments. In a discussion on politics, the past is going to and usually should come into consideration. Deal with it.


That is simply ridiculous, no matter how much righteous indignation you attempt to inject into your arguments.

Save the accusations of righteous indignation until you've addressed my arguments.

[Devrim]

An ancestral, arcane tribal fight is not the uprising of the masses the media want us to believe.
Who cares what tribe are you cheering on?Is it purely a coincidence that it's taking place during unrest in every other Arab state?

The impression that I get is that there is a large tribal and İslamicist element to this uprising. Just because there is unrest in other countries doesn't mean that is not how it can express itself in one.

Devrim

[manic expression]

He was never reliant on imperialism because he was a member and the figurehead of a dictatorial ruling class.
Which makes his relationship to imperialism far more complex and contradictory than a US puppet.


This is the second time you've made this strawman. I never made an argument regarding his tweet, nor should I expect to ever - it's not very significant compared to what I've already discussed.
We're confronting this situation. Your "evidence" is at best tangential to what we're discussing.


Actually, I already explored how Chavez has recently been reacting towards the situation in Libya. It sounds like you want me to make ahistorical arguments. In a discussion on politics, the past is going to and usually should come into consideration. Deal with it.
The Libya of three years ago is a far different matter than the Libya of today. If you don't think there's a difference (which you must in order to perform the mental gymnastics you're attempting), it's just further proof that you're unwilling to grapple with the situation at hand.


Save the accusations of righteous indignation until you've addressed my arguments.
Your arguments don't address the substance of the issue.

[Devrim]

* I doubt very much that Chávez actually "does business" with Libya or Iran. They all have (only) oil to sell; they won't be selling it to each others. What they have is a common interest to raise oil prices, which means they will try to co-ordinate efforts - or, if you prefer, they will have oligopolistic prices. Really, I don't expect this to become subordinate to political reasoning. At the same time, I doubt that Chávez will fail to recognise a new Libyan government as soon as it is formed, and to deny Gaddafy any kind of shelter, etc. He needs to be in good terms with those in charge in Libya, whomever they are.

Luís, they run a cartel together. I think that counts as 'doing business'.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

The impression that I get is that there is a large tribal and İslamicist element to this uprising. Just because there is unrest in other countries doesn't mean that is not how it can express itself in one.

Devrim

I realize that, but my point is that it's linked into what's been happening in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and other states. The form that it takes in different countries doesn't change the fact that it's all manifestations of a similar phenomenon, not just the result of some tribes who are mad at the regime.

[Chambered Word]

Which makes his relationship to imperialism far more complex and contradictory than a US puppet.

Have I claimed that he was a US puppet?


We're confronting this situation. Your "evidence" is at best tangential to what we're discussing.

Really. :rolleyes:


The Libya of three years ago is a far different matter than the Libya of today. If you don't think there's a difference (which you must in order to perform the mental gymnastics you're attempting), it's just further proof that you're unwilling to grapple with the situation at hand.

No one has actually claimed any of this. Once again, constructing strawmen.


Your arguments don't address the substance of the issue.

Whatever excuse you want to ignore what I've said is fine, just don't construct arguments that I never made in lieu of the ones I actually did.

[manic expression]

Have I claimed that he was a US puppet?
Have you recognized that him not being a US puppet adds a great deal of complexity to the issue?


Really. :rolleyes:
Really. We're talking about what's happening in Libya now (as we're in "Ongoing Struggles"). If you want to talk about three years ago, I suggest you head to the History forum.


No one has actually claimed any of this. Once again, constructing strawmen.
That Libya is no different today than it was years ago is inherent to your logic. That's hardly my fault.


Whatever excuse you want to ignore what I've said is fine, just don't construct arguments that I never made in lieu of the ones I actually did.
I'm dealing with the assumptions necessary to your position. If you want to run away from that, fine.

[Chambered Word]

Have you recognized that him not being a US puppet adds a great deal of complexity to the issue?

Perhaps. The complexity of an issue isn't a a cop-out, though.


Really. We're talking about what's happening in Libya now (as we're in "Ongoing Struggles"). If you want to talk about three years ago, I suggest you head to the History forum.


Thread title: Chavez supports Gaddafi (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-supports-gaddafi-p2034914/index.html#post2034914)

How does the fact that we're in 'Ongoing Struggles', a board about struggles that are happening right now, lead you to the logical conclusion that the past is not relevant to today?


That Libya is no different today than it was years ago is inherent to your logic. That's hardly my fault.

Why don't you explain this statement then, and tell everybody exactly why my logic is faulty here?


I'm dealing with the assumptions necessary to your position. If you want to run away from that, fine.

I expected you to dance around points and attack what you make out to be anachronisms in the logic of my arguments, as you have done before and I expect you to do in the future. As such, I'm not running away at all. I might fall asleep occasionally though, so please be patient. :rolleyes:

[Die Rote Fahne]

Chavez, like Ghadaffi, is completely batshit.

[Luís Henrique]

Up until the recent violence he has supported Libya. Did the way Libyan society was organized suddenly change the day that Gaddafi sent the military to slaughter protesters? Did Gaddafi begin aiding imperialism that very day?

Well, we too didn't have so much discussion about Gaddafy here. My own organisation didn't discuss its position towards Gaddafy.

Obviously the way Libyan society was organised didn't change suddenly, but Gaddafy's attitude towards the Libyan population did. Or perhaps better, his actual attitude towards the people was revealed due to the crisis. I think it is very reasonable to change views about Gaddafy due to this, either for Chávez or for anyone else (indeed, some posters here in Revleft did exactly that, and I find it a very good thing), even regarding principles. Much more regarding pragmatics, which is probably Chávez's concern.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Luís, they run a cartel together. I think that counts as 'doing business'.

Oh, I see. I was thinking of "doing business" in a too limited way, as in buying and selling to each other. I stand corrected.

Anyway, the business is between Venezuela and Libya, not between Chávez and Gaddafy. Evidently the Venezolan State will need to do business with Libya, regardless if the latter is an absolutist monarchy or a Worker's Council Republic. Which explains Chávez's ambiguity: what he says can be interpreted as support for Gaddafy (in case Gaddafy is able to redress and keep in power) or as support for the Libyian people (in the much more probable case he is ousted).

Myself, in Chávez's position, I would have prefered a much more daring position, immediately supporting the rebellion and calling for Gaddafy's resignment. But then I would also offer him political asylum, which is a different discussion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The impression that I get is that there is a large tribal and İslamicist element to this uprising. Just because there is unrest in other countries doesn't mean that is not how it can express itself in one.

The "terrain", to use a fuzzy concept that I dislike, certainly does not look tribal. No rural guerillas in far away impoverished districts, but urban mass uprisings. But I guess the situation is too unclear by now; we shall soon see.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Liberal cough cough...cough liberal...cough... Moveon.org. Go to it.

Is someone a "liberal" for thinking Socialists shouldn't lend their authenticity to and ally with semi-fascistic Third Positionists?

[manic expression]

Perhaps. The complexity of an issue isn't a a cop-out, though.
Therein lies the difference between the issue and your argument.


How does the fact that we're in 'Ongoing Struggles', a board about struggles that are happening right now, lead you to the logical conclusion that the past is not relevant to today?
Because there have been momentous changes in Libya over the past few weeks. If you want to discuss Chavez's words on Libya before recent events, that's fine, but it has little relevance now.


Why don't you explain this statement then, and tell everybody exactly why my logic is faulty here?
Because you feel that it's reasonable to guess what someone's position is on a present issue by extrapolating statements in completely different contexts.


I expected you to dance around points and attack what you make out to be anachronisms in the logic of my arguments, as you have done before and I expect you to do in the future. As such, I'm not running away at all. I might fall asleep occasionally though, so please be patient. :rolleyes:
Of course you're falling asleep, making the same faulty arguments over and over again must get tiring.

[Chambered Word]

Therein lies the difference between the issue and your argument.

I'll leave it up to experts such as yourself in the future.


Because there have been momentous changes in Libya over the past few weeks. If you want to discuss Chavez's words on Libya before recent events, that's fine, but it has little relevance now.

On the contrary, it has a lot of relevance. But go ahead and flat out deny that I've discussed Chavez's current remarks, facts don't matter after all.


Because you feel that it's reasonable to guess what someone's position is on a present issue by extrapolating statements in completely different contexts.

No one is even trying to do that. To call that an exaggeration would surely be an understatement.


Of course you're falling asleep, making the same faulty arguments over and over again must get tiring.

The reason I could possibly have to fall asleep is the fact that I'm actually tired of dealing with your childish replies and fighting off the same strawmen as well, regardless of how scathing you seem to think your criticisms and juvenile retorts are. As expected, all you're interested in doing is arguing that what I have to say is irrelevant and trying to argue that I'm somehow extrapolating political positions based on the past. I have no interest in continuing this for another 20 posts and I'll allow the moderators and users of RevLeft to decide if what I have discussed is unconnected to the current situation in the world, because any arguments you've made so far seem like fig leaves over the logical conclusions of your politics laid bare. With the cheap and witless jabs made by you against Devrim in a similar thread and your general unwillingness to debate properly, I'm not in the least surprised.


Liberal cough cough...cough liberal...cough... Moveon.org. Go to it.

Can you please, for the love of god, stop making posts like these? I'm talking about the ones where all you do is call someone names without providing theory or evidence to back it up or tell somebody to shut up. This isn't productive at all.

[Revolutionair]

http://feeds.nos.nl/~r/nosnieuws/~3/EE2qHOyjhKs/222345-chavez-vs-wil-olievoorraad-libie.html

"Chavez: 'America wants oil supply Libya.'"

[chebol]

Sorry about the delayed response - I just noticed this utter garbage. On February 26, Chambered Word wrote:


The Socialist Alliance in Australia have recently been taking down articles from the past in Green Left Weekly where they gave support to Libya. It just goes to demonstrate really how honest and principled these elements of the far-left really are. Hopefully in the time to come we'll see more (hopefully proletarian) popular movements embarassing them further.Is is an utterly baseless, untrue, vile and filthy slander. Not one article, letter, press release or statement regarding Libya has been altered, removed or otherwise obscured, not on the Green Left Weekly site, nor Links, nor the Socialist Alliance one.

In fact, the Socialist Alliance National Convenor Peter Boyle hand-typed this (http://peterb1953.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/what-i-wrote-about-a-visit-to-libya-24-years-ago/) article of his from the Australian SWP's Direct Action in the 80's when he visited Libya, and put it on his website of his own accord. Ironically enough, Socialist Alternative used that article (which they would have had no knowledge of otherwise) for a pathetic attempt to argue that Socialist Alliance supports Gaddafi and/ or supported him in the 80s (neither of which have ever been the case - the Socialist Alliance was only formed in 2001).

Chambered Word's baseless, baldfaced lying represents the absolute worst of sectarianism and childish bullshit. Grow up, back up your bullshit lies, or fuck off!

Comradely,

One of the poor souls that wrestles with the resident-evil code on our websites.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Is someone a "liberal" for thinking Socialists shouldn't lend their authenticity to and ally with semi-fascistic Third Positionists?

No, however you're a Liberal for supporting the interests of Imperialism due to lending support to:

*The Libyan Rebels (Whom are armed and supported by NATO and the United States and serve in the interests of Imperialism as shown in various ways through oil interests for the United States and NATO solidified through treaties between the Libyan Rebels.)

Support however shouldn't be given to Gaddafi, however nor should it be given to the Imperialists that seek to push forward their own interests in Libya further through using the Rebel Movement. However, as said in previous threads relating to Imperialism; As of always, the situation should be exploited in order to push forward the Proletariat.