So committed to peace

[khad]

So, Obomber is demanding that the Libyan government surrender vast swathes of territory, most likely including the crucial oil terminals of Ras Lanuf and Brega.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8392091/Libya-Col-Gaddafi-told-to-leave-now-or-face-the-bombers.html
In a statement on Friday night, the US president warned Col Gaddafi that he must withdraw troops from towns previously held by rebels, including Misurata and Zawiyah. The regime should also stop its advance on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi immediately, he said, and basic services including water and electricity should be returned to the areas.Fuck you very much, liberal scum.

[Princess Luna]

there are 3242 reasons i want to say "FUCK YOU!" to Obama , telling Gaddafi to stop killing his own people is not one of them.......

[Sasha]

Rather be liberal scum than an murdering tankie.

Capitalism is bad, really bad. Mass murdering tyrants, still worse.
Anyone disagreeing should take a "holiday in Cambodia"....

[Dimentio]

Obama's popularity is going to go up.

Oh.

I could bring the entire world to peace in two minutes. Make me Emperor of Earth, give me a studio, a trampoline and a room filled with LEGO and I will tell you how... :P

[khad]

Rather be liberal scum than an murdering tankie.
Riiiiight, and where are the massacres? Every day you hear about so-called massacres of civilians in Libya, and when you read the actual death count, it goes something like this:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1624999.php/Injuries-from-Libyan-air-strike-on-Ras-Lanuf-reaches-17


Rebels said that Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi's troops attacked a residential neighbourhood Thursday in Ras Lanuf, a day after the Libyan news website Brniq reported that four people were killed in air strikes on the city on Wednesday.Meanwhile, in Pakistan...

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/17/at-least-41-killed-as-us-drones-attack-tribal-jirga-in-north-waziristan/


The latest US drone strike against North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan is amongst the deadliest in recent memory, with at least (http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5045330) 41 people killed and other, unconfirmed sources speculating the toll may be upwards of 80.

Making matters worse, this strike isn’t coming with the usual pretense of (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/09/report-shows-major-civilian-toll-in-us-drone-war-in-pakistan/)everyone slain being a “suspected militant.” Rather, the attack struck (http://tribune.com.pk/story/133842/drone-strike-kills-8-in-datta-khel/) a tribal jirga (official meeting) for the Madda Khel tribe, in the town of Datta Khel.
Capitalism is bad, really bad. Mass murdering tyrants, still worse.
Anyone disagreeing should take a "holiday in Cambodia"....If you think somehow that Western capitalism isn't mass murdering, I'll refer you to the 1 million dead Iraqis since the invasion.

I think the recent events have really shown who the clueless liberals on this site are. Obama already has more blood on his hands than Gaddafi ever will, and yet you still find his supporters here.

[La Comédie Noire]

A lot of people are about to die and Gaddafi will probably be replaced by someone worse.

[Mindtoaster]

So, Obomber is demanding that the Libyan government surrender vast swathes of territory, most likely including the crucial oil terminals of Ras Lanuf and Brega.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8392091/Libya-Col-Gaddafi-told-to-leave-now-or-face-the-bombers.htmlFuck you very much, liberal scum.

What about this is so morally offensive? As CS already said, theres a million reasons to hate Obama, but I hardly see whats so terrible about this

[khad]

What about this is so morally offensive? As CS already said, theres a million reasons to hate Obama, but I hardly see whats so terrible about this
Many towns in Libya like Ras Lanuf and Brega don't have any permanent population and exist to house oil workers, most of whom have left since the fighting began between the government and the rebels. In light of this, this is basically demanding a direct transfer of resources.

But I guess nakedly imperialistic demands don't faze people anymore.

[Sasha]

Oil minister of lybia on al jazeera promises to give its oil away to any company and country willing.
The regime doesn't care for lybia or its people, only its own skin.

[Sasha]

Riiiiight, and where are the massacres?

n0ywJD3sllY

[khad]

There is no video of the shooting, just bodies. For all we know the rebels themselves might have done it (standing over the bodies and chanting Allahu Akbar, give me a break), just like how they murdered members of the Hasoony tribe in Bin Jawad to turn the town against them, or the 70-80 African workers reported killed in one go with knives and shears.

Update:
There is quite a bit of talk in the Arab world about the validity of this footage with rebels standing over a row of bodies chanting Allahu Akbar, and there has been speculation identifying some of the executed soldiers as prisoners held and interrogated by the rebels.

8POHluG86IU

Civil wars are hell, what can I say?

[Sasha]

_CoO00yczdc

oObXH3TD4WQ

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=protesters+shot+libya&aq=1m


Search results for



protesters shot libya

About 1,930 results




and care to comment on the oil minister who promises to give the oil away to any foreign big country willing to save the regime?

[khad]

oObXH3TD4WQ
Do you really expect to convince anyone with blatant propaganda such as this? This is some random rebel caller claiming that there are "massacres" from the air attacks in Benghazi and calling for Obama to get his war on.

And then when you look at casualty reports from Mar 18:


(AGI) Algiers - The death toll of Muammar Gaddafi's air raids on Benghazi is of at least 8 fatalities. The news was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. A witness reported to the pan-Arab TV network that the victims were in the Dinar district and were probably insurgents.So Al-Jazeera, by no means a pro-Gaddafi source, even claims that most of the scant number of victims were apparently armed rebels.

How does <10 people killed in combat (according to even your favorite anti-Gaddafi sources) constitute a massacre? Have we lowered the threshold so much that even a single death counts as a massacre? More people are killed in every air strike in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and yet Obama is not a "mass murderer" but your savior.


and care to comment on the oil minister who promises to give the oil away to any foreign big country willing to save the regime?So? Venezuela sells oil to the west too. But the point about the oil industry in countries like Libya have always been about the structure of the industry domestically, which in Libya's case isn't privatized enough for global capital's liking. As another poster put it:

"At the same time, however, Gaddafi promoted directly transferring the country's oil wealth to citizens in the form of direct cash payments. This massive redistribution of wealth was supposed to replace state employment as the new means of providing a social safety net. Meanwhile, the Libyan government was also extremely tightening the screws on foreign oil companies and forcing them to accept smaller and smaller portions of the oil revenues produced in the country. The contract with ENI that you mentioned is a prime example."

Furthermore, the so-called statement from Libya's acting oil minister is really just a statement about honoring existing contracts with companies which have evacuated the country since the shooting started.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/19/2801s627315.htm



Shukri Ghanem, head of Libya's National Oil Company, said Libya will honor international deals signed with the world's oil companies.
Last week, he said Libya's oil production had fallen dramatically due to the departure of foreigners working in oil fields as unrest and security woes hit the country.
He called on foreign companies to send back their workers to resume their production.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think we can NOT trust the news and so called "eyewitness" accounts AT AL.

It has been proven time and time again in the course of this conflict these are not trustworthy, wrong and driven by propaganda from both sides.

I have heard and seen people getting killed by both sides. Immigrants, soldiers, protesters, civilians, opposition and regime sympathisers.

What is blatantly obvious though is that the rebels have been clamoring for intervention from the get go and I think their main strategy is to work the international opinion....as well as Gadaffi is doing.

The language in the press is completely biased. We hear of "massive bombardments"...yet no footage which even validates this word usages.
We hear of "continuous airstrikes against civilians".....yet no footgae of bombed out civilian quarters.
We hear of "massacres".....with just a handful of people being killed often when they were fighting themselves.
We have heard the "airstrikes" from the get go....yet these have been retracted later on.
We heard Gadaffi had NO support....it turns out he has MASSIVE support in the country.


So yeah...there is a propaganda war going on.


And yeah...I was squarely behind the rebels from the start. But the longer I watch this news farce, the more lies and slants are being used without any basis in fact or reality...I have now become neutral...

NOT because I support Gadaffi or dislike democratization. But because I think the rebels are mostly monarchists, tribalists and imperialist provocateurs who are now useful tools in the hands of imperialist powers. In my opinion Gadaffi has to go...he is a repressive dictator...but I don't trust the rebels for one second not to install a new one or degenerate in tribalism or fractioning the country.

Wasting days after day by celebrating victories not yet won and allowing intervention from the start.

All objectivity has been lost....and popular hysteria has taken over.

The people of Libya will loose either way.

[Sasha]

where did you see "huge support" for gadaffi? i only seen some small support demonstrations where the participants admitted to Al Jazeera they where either securitypolice members (or other state employees needing protection of the regime) or paid significant sums of money. This while the workingclass neighborhoods of tripoli rose up against gadaffi.
And at the same time i also seen ordinary workers from benghazi, from factory and oil workers to lawyers and doctors taking up small arms, filling petrol bombs to use against the tanks etc etc.

i too distruct the media, the "new councel" and the intentions of the most prominent backers of the UN resolution but i really wonder how you came to the conclusion that " the rebels are mostly monarchists, tribalists and imperialist provocateurs".
it seems to me that the majority of the rebels are still honest workers wanting some more freedom.

funny how the "anti-imps" here accuse those still supporting the uprising of falling for propaganda and not looking at the actual situation yet themselves spouting this "tribal" and "monarchist" baloney.
yes, tribal politics seem in libya more important than in other countrys but dont paint an orientalist picture like the country is populated by bedoeids living in tents.
we are talking citys here with several milion people, an demografic with an majority of reasonably well educated, western oreintated -30 year olds... just like tunisa, just like egypt
and yes they are flying the old "monarchist" flag, but except of some involvement of some distant relative of the old monarch i have seen no'one expressing an wish back to the monarchy. instead each and everybody quizzed about the choice of flag stressed it was chosen as the "independence" flag not "monarchist" flag.
chosen to express national pride and unity while still de-legitimizing gadaffi and his coup that brought him to power and his attempt at an complete overhaul of their identity (chancing the flag, chancing the name of the country, imposing his greenbook "revolution" etc etc)

seems to me gadaffi stil knows how to play the knee-jerk reactions of both the "left" and the right to his advantage (well, actually not so much the right as almost no-one, not even on FOX seem to fall for his Al Quada line like some here are still jump back on board as soon as he goes in an "anti-impialism" rant). Not that should really be an suprise, he got away with it for 40 years.

[manic expression]

psycho, it's a complicated situation but this specific point is quite simple: an imperialist invasion of a sovereign country is not justified under any circumstances. That goes double for an invasion concocted in order to control natural resources and fight a regime that imperialism was friendly with just a few months ago. If imperialism cared about the treatment of unarmed protestors they wouldn't be sitting silently as imperialist protectorates in the region fire upon protests themselves. Suffice to say, this isn't about that and it never will be.

"Gaddafi is a mean guy who hates freedom" doesn't at all differ from the reasons given for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia or any other people made to suffer for the pocketbook of imperialism. It's an argument that carries no currency outside of the echo chamber of imperialist media. Anyone who looks at a map of North Africa and its oil fields can see that this is plainly about control of resources and geopolitical maneuvering (in case someone didn't notice, Egypt's western border is now under the auspices of imperialism and its vassals).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's pretty clear that Gaddafi has used rocket artillery on civilian areas and used his secret police to arrest and terrorize protesters in Tripoli and other areas that Gaddafi supporters managed to hang on to. I don't think most people would want to be hit by a Grad rocket. Last I heard, it's no better for your health than an airstrike :P

[manic expression]

It's pretty clear that Gaddafi has used rocket artillery on civilian areas and used his secret police to arrest and terrorize protesters in Tripoli and other areas that Gaddafi supporters managed to hang on to. I don't think most people would want to be hit by a Grad rocket.
Yes, some people aren't fit to bomb civilian areas and arrest and terrorize civilians. That's a job for the good guys. :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Why do a lot of anarchists take a side in a conflict between bourgeois forces in a civil war, neither of which are working class forces?

Because it's "democratic" forces against Qaddafi? Give me a break. The victory of either of the current sides to this will be a blow to the class struggle in Libya.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, some people aren't fit to bomb civilian areas and arrest and terrorize civilians. That's a job for the good guys. :rolleyes:

Did I say anything which would indicate any support of air strikes, especially in civilian areas? :confused: I think the US shouldn't use drones on a village with a bunch of women and children, and I would support Gaddafi shooting Grad rockets into a city, I am very consistent on this.

[manic expression]

Did I say anything which would indicate any support of air strikes, especially in civilian areas? :confused: I think the US shouldn't use drones on a village with a bunch of women and children, and I would support Gaddafi shooting Grad rockets into a city, I am very consistent on this.
If you don't oppose this imperialist invasion, you will be a bit less consistent on this.

[Sasha]

i as an individual am against all nations, all borders, but before all im against all dictatorships (excluding the one of the proletariat offcourse ;)).
does the fact that i'm against nations mean that i dont acknowledge that they exist atm? no.
so am i against imperialist interventions? yes.
does that mean that i'm until the world revolution happens completly against UN peacekeeping missions, international law and no fly zones? no.
The UN is not perfect, not by an longshot, and the whole veto buisness is wrong let alone the fact that any meaningfull desiscion is dominated by the clique of the Security Council. But its still an improvement, its still better that the situation prior to the UN. (pre-WWI mess for example)
i want all nations to go away, but as long as they are here and dominate us they should play acording to an set of rules. and the UN rules are the best thing we have at the moment. (hey, the fact that i'm against parliamentary "democracy" doesnt mean i dont vote either, the fact that i'm against bourgois law doesnt mean i wouldt sue someone if that helps my case)
and yes that means that an UN resolution should be followed (by nations and regimes, not the people offcourse), not only the one in libya at the moment, but also the ones dealing with israel.
afterall would any of you object if an UN force would move in and kick the IDF and setlers out of palestine?

offcourse i want revoltion and all that, but i'm also realistic enough its not happening soon, so just as i want the cop (that i oppose) to follow the law (that i oppose) when he tries to smash my brain in, i want nationstates (that i oppose) to follow international law (that i oppose). its their rulebook (dont forget that libya is an member of the UN too), they should play by it.

[gorillafuck]

So you'd like for your country to intervene in Libya with a UN force and defeat Libya?

What's that called? Oh right, social chauvinism.

[Sasha]

if that cops bashes my brain in i want the law to trow the book at him, if i would bash an cops brain in i would like to get away with it.
if an nationstate kills its civilians i want other nationstates to put an end to it, if the people rise up and do away with the nationstates i hope they succeed.
you can keep the moral highground, it will get you killed

[khad]

if that cops bashes my brain in i want the law to trow the book at him, if i would bash an cops brain in i would like to get away with it.
if an nationstate kills its civilians i want other nationstates to put an end to it, if the people rise up and do away with the nationstates i hope they succeed.
you can keep the moral highground, it will get you killed
Why aren't you calling for a UN invasion of your own nation-state to stop its complicity in mass murder, rape, and pillage in Afghanistan?

[freepalestine]

i as an individual am against all nations, all borders, but before all im against all dictatorships (excluding the one of the proletariat offcourse ;)).
does the fact that i'm against nations mean that i dont acknowledge that they exist atm? no.
so am i against imperialist interventions? yes.
does that mean that i'm until the world revolution happens completly against UN peacekeeping missions, international law and no fly zones? no.
The UN is not perfect, not by an longshot, and the whole veto buisness is wrong let alone the fact that any meaningfull desiscion is dominated by the clique of the Security Council. But its still an improvement, its still better that the situation prior to the UN. (pre-WWI mess for example)
i want all nations to go away, but as long as they are here and dominate us they should play acording to an set of rules. and the UN rules are the best thing we have at the moment. (hey, the fact that i'm against parliamentary "democracy" doesnt mean i dont vote either, the fact that i'm against bourgois law doesnt mean i wouldt sue someone if that helps my case)
and yes that means that an UN resolution should be followed (by nations and regimes, not the people offcourse), not only the one in libya at the moment, but also the ones dealing with israel.
afterall would any of you object if an UN force would move in and kick the IDF and setlers out of palestine?

offcourse i want revoltion and all that, but i'm also realistic enough its not happening soon, so just as i want the cop (that i oppose) to follow the law (that i oppose) when he tries to smash my brain in, i want nationstates (that i oppose) to follow international law (that i oppose). its their rulebook (dont forget that libya is an member of the UN too), they should play by it.id laugh if i heard an anarchist agree with that.what you wrote is not much more than a liberal would.

and obviously you have a problem with the palestinians (,such as me; / ) why you mention palestine-??

[PhoenixAsh]

where did you see "huge support" for gadaffi? i only seen some small support demonstrations where the participants admitted to Al Jazeera they where either securitypolice members (or other state employees needing protection of the regime) or paid significant sums of money.

Nevertheless 80% of the country did NOT protest, did not rise up and are still loyal to Gadaffi. Of all the tribes many still remain loyal....even two of the three major tribes within Benghazi.

Not to mention the fact that several "liberated" towns taken by rebels...workers turned against these rebels.




This while the workingclass neighborhoods of tripoli rose up against gadaffi. And at the same time i also seen ordinary workers from benghazi, from factory and oil workers to lawyers and doctors taking up small arms, filling petrol bombs to use against the tanks etc etc.


Yes...workers do participate. Maybe without political affiliation...but certainly not backing any socialists or communists. There are offcourse enough examples in history where workers rose up or supported questionable political groups...including monarchists, fascists and nationalists.

Many of the "leading" groups of a very fragmentised rebel alliance are in fact tribal leaders who are itching to gain much more control which they formerly lost, former military officers several of which have been talking about restoring the monarchy, several high plice officers (who have for years collaborated with the government), diplomats grouped together around neo-liberalist politics many of whom want to restore the monarchy.

Its these people who are leading the rebellion. NOT the workers on the ground. Its also those people who have lobbied for military intervention from the start to oust Gadaffi.




i too distruct the media, the "new councel" and the intentions of the most prominent backers of the UN resolution but i really wonder how you came to the conclusion that " the rebels are mostly monarchists, tribalists and imperialist provocateurs".
it seems to me that the majority of the rebels are still honest workers wanting some more freedom.

well...see above.



funny how the "anti-imps" here accuse those still supporting the uprising of falling for propaganda and not looking at the actual situation yet themselves spouting this "tribal" and "monarchist" baloney.

No...the tribal leaders have stated as much; we want the power back we lost during Gadaffi. The defected officers and diplomats have argued actively for return of the monarchy and have advocated military intervention.




yes, tribal politics seem in libya more important than in other countrys but dont paint an orientalist picture like the country is populated by bedoeids living in tents.
we are talking citys here with several milion people, an demografic with an majority of reasonably well educated, western oreintated -30 year olds... just like tunisa, just like egypt


Yes...kjust like Holland during the pre- and post war era. People go with their "tibes"



and yes they are flying the old "monarchist" flag, but except of some involvement of some distant relative of the old monarch i have seen no'one expressing an wish back to the monarchy. instead each and everybody quizzed about the choice of flag stressed it was chosen as the "independence" flag not "monarchist" flag.

I am not talking about teh flag. THe flag is irrelevant. I am talking about diplomats and military leaders who have stated as much.



chosen to express national pride and unity while still de-legitimizing gadaffi and his coup that brought him to power and his attempt at an complete overhaul of their identity (chancing the flag, chancing the name of the country, imposing his greenbook "revolution" etc etc)

seems to me gadaffi stil knows how to play the knee-jerk reactions of both the "left" and the right to his advantage (well, actually not so much the right as almost no-one, not even on FOX seem to fall for his Al Quada line like some here are still jump back on board as soon as he goes in an "anti-impialism" rant). Not that should really be an suprise, he got away with it for 40 years.

Neither am I ...but you are falling for the active reqruitment of the rebels. They argued military intervention from the start and it has been evident they have constructed lies and disinformation.

The fact that the entire right...including NATO....are currently trampling to intervene. That is not for nothing.

[gorillafuck]

if that cops bashes my brain in i want the law to trow the book at him, if i would bash an cops brain in i would like to get away with it.
if an nationstate kills its civilians i want other nationstates to put an end to it, if the people rise up and do away with the nationstates i hope they succeed.
you can keep the moral highground, it will get you killedThat isn't how the politics of capitalist wars actually work...

Also, to echo what khad said, why don't you call for a UN invasion of your own country?

What's your stance on the UN authorized occupation of Afghanistan? Keeping in mind that the Taliban were dictatorial.

[Raubleaux]

Leave it to the modern "left wing" to not bat an eyelash when they end up on the same side as the forces of imperialists and racists. So-called "leftists" have cheered the defeat of almost every socialist country since World War II.

[The Red Next Door]

Why do a lot of anarchists take a side in a conflict between bourgeois forces in a civil war, neither of which are working class forces?

Because it's "democratic" forces against Qaddafi? Give me a break. The victory of either of the current sides to this will be a blow to the class struggle in Libya.

because they are bourgeois.

[PhoenixAsh]

i as an individual am against all nations, all borders, but before all im against all dictatorships (excluding the one of the proletariat offcourse ;)).
does the fact that i'm against nations mean that i dont acknowledge that they exist atm? no.
so am i against imperialist interventions? yes.
does that mean that i'm until the world revolution happens completly against UN peacekeeping missions, international law and no fly zones? no.
The UN is not perfect, not by an longshot, and the whole veto buisness is wrong let alone the fact that any meaningfull desiscion is dominated by the clique of the Security Council. But its still an improvement, its still better that the situation prior to the UN. (pre-WWI mess for example)
i want all nations to go away, but as long as they are here and dominate us they should play acording to an set of rules. and the UN rules are the best thing we have at the moment. (hey, the fact that i'm against parliamentary "democracy" doesnt mean i dont vote either, the fact that i'm against bourgois law doesnt mean i wouldt sue someone if that helps my case)
and yes that means that an UN resolution should be followed (by nations and regimes, not the people offcourse), not only the one in libya at the moment, but also the ones dealing with israel.
afterall would any of you object if an UN force would move in and kick the IDF and setlers out of palestine?

offcourse i want revoltion and all that, but i'm also realistic enough its not happening soon, so just as i want the cop (that i oppose) to follow the law (that i oppose) when he tries to smash my brain in, i want nationstates (that i oppose) to follow international law (that i oppose). its their rulebook (dont forget that libya is an member of the UN too), they should play by it.


Yeah...unfortunately the UN violated one of their statutes in adopting the resolution respecting the souvereign character of all its members and recognizing the territorial integrity of every country as well as the right of self defence.

So...obviously there are conflicting laws in the body of international law.
Nor are these laws being applied fairly and continuously. There has been no UN condemnation of the drone attack which killed, according to the latest estimates, 75+ people including women and children. Nor has there been any resolution adopted which called for enforcement of no flyzones and demilitarized zones in Irag and Afghanisatn against government forces who use indiscriminate violence against civilians.

So the law is applied discriminately....and with specific purpose to a select group of nations.


Why exactly did they do that? well...they did that because of pressure by several countries who have major economic, strategic and political benefit by ousting Gadaffi. They only did so after the rebels & tribes had secured control of all the major oil producing regions and cities....and this control was contested.

These countries are the richest and wealthiest countries in the world and their military power combined is the largest in the world. As such they control the UN.


As of today it is announced NATO will be involved in securing the no-fly zones. And as we all know NATO hase been transfered to not only include strategic threat but actively protecting economic interest of its
member states in the last meeting.

And how do they do it?

By claiming a humanic disaster. Now...I don;t know about you...but I have seen no evidence of that disaster taking place. I have heard rumours, I have heard eye witness accounts...but I have not seen any confirmation.

And even with the intervention in Irag there was a huge call for actual evidence. and even if it was mostly fake evidence...there was and is a need in international law to base any decision on evidence.



So...yeah...I completely agree with you on the state, the law and the different international, intra-national and national burgeoisie organisations. Absolutely you are right in saying that within the current system it is better to adher to the law than not. And I do agree with the opposition to dictatorships.

But I do not agree with your conlcusion on this specific situation.

There is no good or bad in this situation....either forces have been guilty in committing attrocities and crimes against humanity. The political motivations of both groups is highly suspect and there is a huge advocacy of imperialist intervention....not with the intent of ousting a dictator...as the situations in Bahrein, Saudi Arabia clearly illustrate but to gain control over economic and strategic resources with the intent of either establishing a new dictatorship, increase tribalism or fragmenting the country.

I can not support one side over the other. Its difficult...but I feel I do not have enough information, have seen to many lies and bias and have seen to many misuse of international law in this specific situation.

I am against Gadaffi, I am against imperial intervention, I am agaist the dictatorship and I am not pro rebels....nor can I take a position because all are interlinked. Its a fail-fail situation any time.

[Devrim]

if that cops bashes my brain in i want the law to trow the book at him, if i would bash an cops brain in i would like to get away with it.
if an nationstate kills its civilians i want other nationstates to put an end to it, if the people rise up and do away with the nationstates i hope they succeed.
you can keep the moral highground, it will get you killed

Whereas imperialist interventions, such as one that you are supporting, just have a record of getting millions of workers and peasants killed.

Devrim

[the last donut of the night]

I think it's time for the people who love defending Third World henchmen as "anti-imperialistic" go read a book. I live in Latin America, and our history is plagued by people who in the name of "anti-imperialism" did nothing to end in capitalism. Brazil's history, for example, is full of these leaders: Joao Goulart or Lula. (I wouldn't be surprised if someone on this site defended Getulio Vargas, as well, to be honest.) They and their parties (and the clusterfuck of trade-unions, leftists and liberals) love talking about "social injustice" but promote a government idea that "Brazil is for every Brazilian". Libya is the same shit. Gaddhafi has a long history of collaborating with Western companies, and not even that, he has a long history of being completely inactive when it comes to socialism. But of course -- he's a bourgeois leader like any other else. There is no "democratic force" when it comes to him, seeing he hasn't promoted it in about 30 years. Democracy will come out of workers' independent action, and nothing else. Opposing Gaddhafi as a communist is not betraying "the Libyan people" or siding with American imperialism. It's the exact opposite. If you want real democracy to install itself in Libya, your course as action should be as it's always been for revolutionaries: side with workers, no matter what. It's pretty simple, actually.

[khad]

I think it's time for the people who love defending Third World henchmen as "anti-imperialistic" go read a book. I live in Latin America, and our history is plagued by people who in the name of "anti-imperialism" did nothing to end in capitalism. Brazil's history, for example, is full of these leaders: Joao Goulart or Lula.
Soooo, Brazil gets bombed next, amirite?

[Wanted Man]

i as an individual am against all nations, all borders, but before all im against all dictatorships (excluding the one of the proletariat offcourse ;)).
does the fact that i'm against nations mean that i dont acknowledge that they exist atm? no.
so am i against imperialist interventions? yes.
does that mean that i'm until the world revolution happens completly against UN peacekeeping missions, international law and no fly zones? no.
The UN is not perfect, not by an longshot, and the whole veto buisness is wrong let alone the fact that any meaningfull desiscion is dominated by the clique of the Security Council. But its still an improvement, its still better that the situation prior to the UN. (pre-WWI mess for example)
i want all nations to go away, but as long as they are here and dominate us they should play acording to an set of rules. and the UN rules are the best thing we have at the moment. (hey, the fact that i'm against parliamentary "democracy" doesnt mean i dont vote either, the fact that i'm against bourgois law doesnt mean i wouldt sue someone if that helps my case)
and yes that means that an UN resolution should be followed (by nations and regimes, not the people offcourse), not only the one in libya at the moment, but also the ones dealing with israel.
afterall would any of you object if an UN force would move in and kick the IDF and setlers out of palestine?

offcourse i want revoltion and all that, but i'm also realistic enough its not happening soon, so just as i want the cop (that i oppose) to follow the law (that i oppose) when he tries to smash my brain in, i want nationstates (that i oppose) to follow international law (that i oppose). its their rulebook (dont forget that libya is an member of the UN too), they should play by it.

Umm, OK. Then why even bother being an anarchist? Surely you can just get a cushy job at some NGO and fulfil your dreams?

[Sasha]

Whereas imperialist interventions, such as one that you are supporting, just have a record of getting millions of workers and peasants killed.

Devrim

I don't support the intervention, I just don't oppose it either.
Like yhlo says its an nationstate capitalist party and I'm not invited.
I want gadaffi gone, I would prefer an real revolution but I won't shed an tear if the French drop an bomb on him either. Want me to oppose the "imperialists"? Call me if they send in an occupation force.
Did, and do I oppose the bombartment of Serbia? Yes. Are my serbian friends happy milosovich I gone? Yes too.

[Wanted Man]

Surely by that point, this kind of vocal support for "humanitarian bombing" is just a kind of buying-off of one's own guilt about the lack of revolutionary action at home? After all, the difference between a victory for Gadhafi or for a pro-western regime, both in terms of the immediate amount of deaths and in terms of the exploitation and oppression that the Libyans will face afterwards, will probably be negligible.

[khad]

I don't support the intervention, I just don't oppose it either.
Like yhlo says its an nationstate capitalist party and I'm not invited.
I want gadaffi gone, I would prefer an real revolution but I won't shed an tear if the French drop an bomb on him either. Want me to oppose the "imperialists"? Call me if they send in an occupation force.
And a year from now when UN or AU soldiers (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167704.html) are enforcing a cease fire like in Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Mission_in_Sudan), you're going to be scrambling over yourself to proclaim neither support nor opposition for the deployment of ground troops.

I said it here first. Book it.


After all, the difference between a victory for Gadhafi or for a pro-western regime, both in terms of the immediate amount of deaths and in terms of the exploitation and oppression that the Libyans will face afterwards, will probably be negligible.

How many Iraqis did Saddam Hussein kill and how many were killed by sanctions and the Iraq War?

[gorillafuck]

How many Iraqis did Saddam Hussein kill and how many were killed by sanctions and the Iraq War?Sanctions were hundreds of thousands. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands from executions, putting down Kurds, stifling the 1991 rebellion, and the Iran-Iraq war. I am not sure about the current Iraq war.

I'm estimating that NATO and the US did kill more Iraqis than Saddam did but really they are similar numbers.

Also, it's hard to fathom how an anarchist can be a critical supporter of the UN and it's "peacekeeping" missions.

[the last donut of the night]

I don't support the intervention, I just don't oppose it either.
Like yhlo says its an nationstate capitalist party and I'm not invited.


i however oppose the invasion

[the last donut of the night]

Soooo, Brazil gets bombed next, amirite?

:rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

With bombs surely now dropping on hapless workers and soldiers of even a bourgeois butcher like Gaddafi, combined with the clear co-optionist leadership of the "opposition", there is only one way for true leftists: unequivocal opposition for the imperialist slaughter. Time and time again they pull the same trick out on us, "HITLER MAD DICTATOR SLAUGHTER MUST INTERVENE PROTECT". Its always been bullshit, it will always be bullshit. To support imperialist war is to support the use of workers are expendable pawns on the Imperial chessboard. Naturally of course, there is what exactly response to American clients putting down the Bahraini protesters in the shameful fashion of Eastern Bloc tanks rolling through Prague? Dead silence.

NO TO IMPERIALIST WAR.

[Chimurenga.]

If you want real democracy to install itself in Libya, your course as action should be as it's always been for revolutionaries: side with workers, no matter what. It's pretty simple, actually.

As if the opposition in Libya is completely comprised of workers...

And this worked out so great in Poland, getting a crypto-fascist into power and all. Great analysis. :laugh:

Dunce hat for you. (http://theradioblog.marthastewart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dunce-713973.jpg)



I don't support the intervention, I just don't oppose it either.

Why are you on this forum? Honestly. You don't give a shit about the Libyan people. Why do you waste your own and everyone else's time with your pro-imperialist reactionary shit?

[Lycurgus]

The victory of either of the current sides to this will be a blow to the class struggle in Libya.

So, what should we do - keep quiet about the issue? Call for social revolution? If so, which actual forces do we align with?

That's not a rhetorical question or facetiousness by the way, I'm genuinely interested to know what the response is to a situation with two seemingly bad outcomes.

[Sasha]

Why are you on this forum? Honestly. You don't give a shit about the Libyan people. Why do you waste your own and everyone else's time with your pro-imperialist reactionary shit?

You should be the one to ask, an statecapitalist all fine and dandy with massmurder, military aggression and imperialism as long as the dictator in question trew ever some pseudo left sloganeering around.
I'm all willing to discuss the ethics of my position but not with an stalinist tankie, think you lot lost the last bit of you credibility on the subject when you supported, as you still do the invasion of Prague and Hungary. Not to mention the nice little cut up of Poland between jozef and adolf.

[khad]

You should be the one to ask, an statecapitalist all fine and dandy with massmurder, military aggression and imperialism as long as the dictator in question trew ever some pseudo left sloganeering around.
And the shoe fits on the other foot.

What makes you ok with the USA and European capitalist states which are already committing mass murder in the Middle East and Central Asia? What makes their intervention, which has already killed millions around the globe, acceptable?

[Sasha]

Learn to read...

[manic expression]

You should be the one to ask, an statecapitalist all fine and dandy with massmurder, military aggression and imperialism as long as the dictator in question trew ever some pseudo left sloganeering around.
I'm all willing to discuss the ethics of my position but not with an stalinist tankie, think you lot lost the last bit of you credibility on the subject when you supported, as you still do the invasion of Prague and Hungary. Not to mention the nice little cut up of Poland between jozef and adolf.
This post shows two things: first, that you don't know the meaning of any of the terms you toss around; second, that you seem to only support foreign "intervention" when there's oil and geopolitical positioning to be had by imperialist forces.

[khad]

Learn to read...

You're being quite disingenuous.



Whereas imperialist interventions, such as one that you are supporting, just have a record of getting millions of workers and peasants killed.

Devrim

I don't support the intervention, I just don't oppose it either.
Like yhlo says its an nationstate capitalist party and I'm not invited.

Devrim stated that any war with Libya will likely involve a lot of collateral damage. Not only do you ignore this, you then turn around and claim that you're not involved - not invited, as you say.

However, this isn't what you said earlier, where you clearly picked a side to stand with the liberal interventionists:


Rather be liberal scum than an murdering tankie.

Capitalism is bad, really bad. Mass murdering tyrants, still worse.
Anyone disagreeing should take a "holiday in Cambodia"....

I'm not here to play your little sectarian battles. I don't need to because I see clearly what your objective position is.

You prefer capitalism to "mass murdering tyrants," isn't that right? As if somehow the two are mutally exclusive. These are your words, not mine.

I think everyone else here understands the extent to which your begrudgingly loved "capitalism" has been responsible for mass murder around the globe.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/8-years-iraq-t151741/index.html

[Jose Gracchus]

The war is escalating, Obama is purportedly committed to regime change:

http://twitter.com/marcambinder/status/49209336081289216

[the last donut of the night]

As if the opposition in Libya is completely comprised of workers...

And this worked out so great in Poland, getting a crypto-fascist into power and all. Great analysis. :laugh:

Dunce hat for you. (http://theradioblog.marthastewart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dunce-713973.jpg)


....

i don't support either side you idiot

[danyboy27]

Last time i checked we still had the option to support the LIbyan working class.

fuck those mass murderer of the working class on both side.

Lets hope that despite The us intervention and effiency of gadafi murder machine, they will prevail.

And if they dont, lets hope other worker will carry the torch to make things change for the best in the future.

[Lycurgus]

"Last time i checked we still had the option to support the LIbyan working class."

Can you tell me how we can do this in a practical, objective way please?

[Raubleaux]

"Last time i checked we still had the option to support the LIbyan working class."

Can you tell me how we can do this in a practical, objective way please?

By being idealistic and utopian and not dealing with the real situations that are actually going on in the world.

[danyboy27]

By being idealistic and utopian and not dealing with the real situations that are actually going on in the world.

like for exemple, supporting the initial fight against the regime, for exemple?
By also supporting initivaitve by the working class over there to get together and overcome their divisions.

it dosnt mean supporting the us intervention btw, see i dont.

[Wanted Man]

It's still difficult to understand how one can be "neither for or against" the idea and practice of liberal interventionism when it has been completely discredited over the last decade.

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem is there really is no alternative.

As the rebellion goes hand in hand with imperialism and is burgeoisie in nature. The other possibility is the regime, which is oppressive and brutal in nature and has sold out.

Either the rebels win in their bid for more "freedom", which they can not do without intervention...or the dictatorship wins and will probably repress the population and execute a fair amount of innocents. Even if the rebels win...that isn't said they will not take vengeance on black people, regime loyalists and innocent supporters. Nor is it said the country will not degenrate into monarchy or tribalism.

The working class is horribly split between the two factions.

So...yeah...choices, choices.

I can not in good conscience make one.


I support the freedom bit...but not the entire rebellion. I support the workers...but they are on both sides with an equally misguided but in comparison genuine claim.
I oppose dictatorship...but not if it means tribalism, monarchy or imperialism. I oppose imperialism...but I do not support massacres, vengeance or civil war against civilians.

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by psycho
i as an individual am against all nations, all borders, but before all im against all dictatorships (excluding the one of the proletariat offcourse ).
does the fact that i'm against nations mean that i dont acknowledge that they exist atm? no.
so am i against imperialist interventions? yes.
does that mean that i'm until the world revolution happens completly against UN peacekeeping missions, international law and no fly zones? no.
The UN is not perfect, not by an longshot, and the whole veto buisness is wrong let alone the fact that any meaningfull desiscion is dominated by the clique of the Security Council. But its still an improvement, its still better that the situation prior to the UN. (pre-WWI mess for example)
i want all nations to go away, but as long as they are here and dominate us they should play acording to an set of rules. and the UN rules are the best thing we have at the moment. (hey, the fact that i'm against parliamentary "democracy" doesnt mean i dont vote either, the fact that i'm against bourgois law doesnt mean i wouldt sue someone if that helps my case)
and yes that means that an UN resolution should be followed (by nations and regimes, not the people offcourse), not only the one in libya at the moment, but also the ones dealing with israel.
afterall would any of you object if an UN force would move in and kick the IDF and setlers out of palestine?

offcourse i want revoltion and all that, but i'm also realistic enough its not happening soon, so just as i want the cop (that i oppose) to follow the law (that i oppose) when he tries to smash my brain in, i want nationstates (that i oppose) to follow international law (that i oppose). its their rulebook (dont forget that libya is an member of the UN too), they should play by it.

Shocked and appalled that some anarchist even has the guts to write this drivel!

This is straight up pro-war Blairite, Hitchean BS. That a "humanitarian" intervention is the only way to save lives and the only pro-left position against dictators.

not surprised that NGN agrees with this drivel too.

[daleckian]

Shocked and appalled that some anarchist even has the guts to write this drivel!


LOL he/she's an ANARCHIST?!?!?! :lol: :laugh:

[Threetune]

Did I say anything which would indicate any support of air strikes, especially in civilian areas? :confused: I think the US shouldn't use drones on a village with a bunch of women and children, and I would support Gaddafi shooting Grad rockets into a city, I am very consistent on this.


Are you really trying to tell us that there is some equivalence, some balance, some comparison or similarity between the amount of premeditated ,provocative and protracted violence, bloodshed and mayhem dished out routinely by ‘democratic’ imperialist governments and the bourgeois nationalists?

Even all the combined efforts of a dozen Gaddafis put together wouldn’t compare, and no amount of fake pacifist sarcasm and liberal justice posturing from you will alter that.

Trying to portray an ‘equivalence’ of violence is exactly what you Israeli Zionist role models have been doing for years with the Palestinians because that’s what ‘liberal’ blitzing imperialist democracies do to muddy the water and further confuse the casual observers and the ‘liberal’ democratic middle classes in their safe back yards.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I seems like it comes down to this question:

What's better?
A) Gadaffi as dictator with low death rate (but over a long time) between rebels (whom have an array of political goals) and loyal forces (maintain the status quo) if the intervention/invasion never occurred.

B) US puppet state (US as dictator) with a much higher death rate due to intervention/invasion, but would last much shorter too.

We can't really predict the results of how life would be for individuals after the war as none of us knows what the result of the war would be on social control afterwards. Either way, it does not look beneficial for the individual Libyan.

In this case, then the options are somewhat even.

HOWEVER, allowing the US more control over another country gives it more power, which will unfavorably affect us all down the road as power is more consolidated. This is what I think the real issue lies at. And this is why my stance is anti-imperialistic.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Fulanito de Tal;2056179]I seems like it comes down to this question:

What's better?
A) Gadaffi as dictator with low death rate (but over a long time) between rebels (whom have an array of political goals) and loyal forces (maintain the status quo) if the intervention/invasion never occurred.

B) US puppet state (US as dictator) with a much higher death rate due to intervention/invasion, but would last much shorter too.
QUOTE]

Sorry, but none of the above.
Tunisia and Egypt have popular revolutionary uprisings against imperialists supported governments.
US and friends counter attack with coup attempt against Gadaffi, a long time pain in their arse, who, at the UN General Council talked about the main challenges to the world, “the climate”, “crisis of capitalist deterioration” and the “food crisis”.

Not a communist speech by any stretch of the imagination, but enough to alert his reactionary neighbours and their backers to his potential for giving trouble in the region.
For not toeing the imperialist line he is getting wacked, unlike the more compliant stooges in the area.

We can only hope he does give em trouble.

[danyboy27]

I seems like it comes down to this question:

What's better?
A) Gadaffi as dictator with low death rate (but over a long time) between rebels (whom have an array of political goals) and loyal forces (maintain the status quo) if the intervention/invasion never occurred.

B) US puppet state (US as dictator) with a much higher death rate due to intervention/invasion, but would last much shorter too.

We can't really predict the results of how life would be for individuals after the war as none of us knows what the result of the war would be on social control afterwards. Either way, it does not look beneficial for the individual Libyan.

In this case, then the options are somewhat even.

HOWEVER, allowing the US more control over another country gives it more power, which will unfavorably affect us all down the road as power is more consolidated. This is what I think the real issue lies at. And this is why my stance is anti-imperialistic.

if life was so simple man, if life was so simple.
You dont seem to consider all the options, life is rarely a matter of a and b choice.

[Chimurenga.]

if life was so simple man, if life was so simple.
You dont seem to consider all the options, life is rarely a matter of a and b choice.

Yeah, I guess the answer to everything is "SUPPORT THE WORKERS!!!" no matter how reactionary or sympathetic to imperialism they or the forces aligned with them, right? The twentieth century points out that this line is completely bankrupt. With getting fascists and crypto-fascists into power and all..

[Sasha]

Huh? Please list where an strict proletarian line as held by left-coms and anarcho-syndicalists helped "get fascist and semi-fascist in power", this in contrast to the sheer endless line of brutal dictators and exploitative statecapitalists that rose under the wings of stalinism and bourgeoisy collaborating "anti-imperialism", starting with the pact with hitler, through the slaughter of millions in Africa, up until present day abominations like north-Korea. Not only responsible for the death of milions but also by their rape of marxism setting the clock back for actual socialism for at least over an century.

[Chimurenga.]

Huh? Please list where an strict proletarian line as held by left-coms and anarcho-syndicalists helped "get fascist and semi-fascist in power",

First off, you're an idiot who cannot read a simple post. I'm talking about the line of blindly following whatever the "working class" does has led to that.


starting with the pact with hitler,

It's interesting that you bring him up because that's one of the leaders I'm directly hinting at who was actually supported by the working class of Germany, thus pointing out the bankruptcy of the line of just supporting whatever the working class does.


Not only responsible for the death of milions but also by their rape of marxism setting the clock back for actual socialism for at least over an century.

Anti-Communism? Check.

Once again, why are you still here?

[empiredestoryer]

what have the usa and england got in common ...they both like stealing things like oil:)

[danyboy27]

Yeah, I guess the answer to everything is "SUPPORT THE WORKERS!!!" no matter how reactionary or sympathetic to imperialism they or the forces aligned with them, right? The twentieth century points out that this line is completely bankrupt. With getting fascists and crypto-fascists into power and all..

fascist where put in power has a result of the division of the left, its incapacity to put their shit together and the illusion fascist created that made the conservative believe that the red where coming to get them.

The whole fucking world is reactionary you know, there are problems in every working class, every single one of them is plagued by various issues; racism, xenophobia, hatred of the poor, belief in god etc etc etc.

I dont support reactionaries action comitted by the working class, i condemn those, but i do support progressive actions.

And if the libyan working class want to get rid of their leader, i fully support them in their action of getting rid of him, hell, i support you in getting rid of your leader has well.

[khad]

hell, i support you in getting rid of your leader has well.
Ron Paul 2012!

[danyboy27]

Ron Paul 2012!

You forgot the nazi bro. Beccause supporting progressive action of the working class also mean supporting the nazi.
your comparaison is absurd.

[Sasha]

It's interesting that you bring him up because that's one of the leaders I'm directly hinting at who was actually supported by the working class of Germany, thus pointing out the bankruptcy of the line of just supporting whatever the working class does.

nice try:


There can be no doubt that the NSDAP recruited across a broad social spectrum. However, its support was not random. We have already noted the over-representation of Protestants, rural areas and small provincial towns, as well as of the Mittelstand, in Nazi support and there was a similar structure to the movement's working-class constituency. The working class, however, was under-represented in the Nazi ranks when compared to the German population as a whole.
The working-class presence among those who voted for Hitler can be made to correlate positively with the proportion of working classes in the electorate as a whole only when foremen, daily helps, workers in domestic industry and, significantly, agricultural labourers are included in the definition of working class. When rural labourers (who inhabited a world quite different to that of the city dweller and factory employee, often paid in kind or subject to landlord pressure) are removed from the equation, a slight negative correlation arises between Nazi support and working-class presence. And if workers in craft (as distinct from factory) sectors are also removed from the equation, the correlation becomes even more negative. It is negative, too, in the large cities where, the closer we look at the factory working class, the lower the percentage support for the NSDAP becomes.
Furthermore, only 13 per cent of the unemployed -- who comprised some 30 per cent of the manual working class in the middle of 1932 and who were over whelmingly concentrated in the big cities and in large-scale manufacture -- supported the National Socialists. It therefore is clear that, although large numbers of workers did vote Nazi, these were not in the main from the classic socialist or communist milieux, rooted as these were in the large cities and in employees in the secondary sector of the economy. If the number of workers in this sector plus the unemployed is correlated with electoral support for the NSDAP, the result is clearly even more negative.


http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

try again


Anti-Communism? Check.

Once again, why are you still here?nope, i'm an actual communist, as an matter of fact anarcho-autonomists like me strive to even created communist like structures even before the collaps of capitalism, its your lot who put the transition to communism on hold, probably indefinitly because communism would mean the loss of that comfortable state-capitalist privileged position your lot like to maneuver yourself into each and every time after your counterrevolutions.

so may i ask, as an non-leftist cheerleader for junta-fascists like gadaffi, theocracys like the iran mullahs and an overt proponent of state-capitalism, why the fuck are you still here?

[Chimurenga.]

nice try: try again Actually, your post proved my point. "It therefore is clear that, although large numbers of workers did vote Nazi, these were not in the main from the classic socialist or communist milieux, rooted as these were in the large cities and in employees in the secondary sector of the economy." Look at my previous post, I never said ALL workers supported the Nazi's.
nope, i'm an actual communist, No you're not. Don't ever refer to yourself as that ever again.
as an matter of fact anarcho-autonomists like me strive to even created communist like structures even before the collaps of capitalism, its your lot who put the transition to communism on hold, Except my tradition is the only left tradition which has won sufficient revolutions which have helped hundreds of millions of peoples in ways your little fucking communes never could. Leave it up to an anti-communist twit like yourself to try to shit all over that.
probably indefinitly because communism would mean the loss of that comfortable state-capitalist privileged position your lot like to maneuver yourself into each and every time after your counterrevolutions. Oh, privileged position? You mean like refusing to acknowledge genuinely socialist leaderships of third world countries which have been consciously fighting off past underdevelopment and over-exploitation in favor of a better future for a country all the while trying to overcome imperialist domination and military encirclement? Calling them "state-capitalist" or whatever term that means you don't have to go through the awful and dreaded experience of actually defending these countries? Fuck off with your hypocrisy.
so may i ask, as an non-leftist cheerleader for junta-fascists like gadaffi, theocracys like the iran mullahs and an overt proponent of state-capitalism, why the fuck are you still here? You're just the kind of abject moron to think that I am a "cheerleader" for any such things you are referring to. By the way, calling Gaddafi a junta-fascist is very imaginative of you. Too bad that doesn't exist in reality nor does whatever idea you conjured up regarding the Iranian leadership and myself.

You live in an utter and complete delusion.

[Chimurenga.]

I dont support reactionaries action comitted by the working class, i condemn those, but i do support progressive actions.

And if the libyan working class want to get rid of their leader, i fully support them in their action of getting rid of him, hell, i support you in getting rid of your leader has well.

You still don't get it. I'm amazed.

[Sasha]

No you're not. Don't ever refer to yourself as that ever again.

or what? contrary to in your wetdreams in reality you dont have an KGB to send out to shut me up.
I'm an communist, communist, communist, lalalala, do you hear me call myself an communist, communist trallalala....



Except my tradition is the only left tradition which has won sufficient revolutions which have helped hundreds of millions of peoples in ways your little fucking communes never could. Leave it up to an anti-communist twit like yourself to try to shit all over that. Oh, privileged position? You mean like refusing to acknowledge genuinely socialist leaderships of third world countries which have been consciously fighting off past underdevelopment and over-exploitation in favor of a better future for a country all the while trying to overcome imperialist domination and military encirclement? Calling them "state-capitalist" or whatever term that means you don't have to go through the awful and dreaded experience of actually defending these countries? blablabla, except cuba, point me to one "socialist" country that didnt end up in either totalitarian madness or corrupt impoverishment ready to be rolled up by the capitalists.
the more Stalinist, the completer the utter failure and the further from an actual communism these regions are now.


Fuck off with your hypocrisy. You're just the kind of abject moron to think that I am a "cheerleader" for any such things you are referring to. By the way, calling Gaddafi a junta-fascist is very imaginative of you. Too bad that doesn't exist in reality nor does whatever idea you conjured up regarding the Iranian leadership and myself. http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iran

:rolleyes:


You live in an utter and complete delusion."If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
— The Mad Hatter"

[manic expression]

or what? contrary to in your wetdreams in reality you dont have an KGB to send out to shut me up.
I'm an communist, communist, communist, lalalala, do you hear me call myself an communist, communist trallalala....
What you call yourself is immaterial. What you identify with is rather pertinent. Slandering socialist societies and defending imperialist invasions exposes your true colors.


blablabla, except cuba, point me to one "socialist" country that didnt end up in either totalitarian madness or corrupt impoverishment ready to be rolled up by the capitalists.
the more Stalinist, the completer the utter failure and the further from an actual communism these regions are now.
So socialist societies that liberated the workers, fought fascism and imperialism and uplifted millions are "failures"? What possible sense does that make? And what does it make the ideologies that were too ineffectual to even create something that could fall? I guess it's easier to whine and moan about the sacrifices of millions for progress than to do anything useful.



http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iran

:rolleyes:
Let me know when you actually read what it says on the site.


"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
— The Mad Hatter"
Sounds like an anarchist. An anarchist who supports imperialist bombings....

...Nah...no way that could happen.

[danyboy27]

You still don't get it. I'm amazed.

hoo shit man! you totally opened my eyes, boy i was so blind!
Kadafi is the only way to go to save this misguided working class from themselves in libya.

Let the purge begin!

[Sasha]

oh and about this bit:


By the way, calling Gaddafi a junta-fascist is very imaginative of you.Colonel Kadaffi is the self described 3th positionist leader of an regime that came to power through an military coup, how the fuck would you decribe his regime differently?


junta (ˈdʒʊntə, ˈdʒʌn-, US ˈhʊntə) http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) — n 1. a group of military officers holding the power in a country, esp after a coup d'état


Third Position is a revolutionary nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism) political ideology that emphasizes its opposition to both communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_left_and_right)", instead claiming to syncretize radical ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_politics) from both ends of the political spectrum.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Berlet_1990-1999-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Griffin_1995-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Coogan_1999-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Lee_1999-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Griffin_2000-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Antonio_2000-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Sunshine_2008-6)
Third Positionists tend to advocate for the ownership of the means of producing goods and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) to be distributed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism) as widely as possible among the "productive members of society" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism), seek alliances with separatists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism) of ethnicity and race other than their own to achieve "separate but equal" ethnic and racial segregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnopluralism), support national liberation movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_active_separatist_movements) in the least developed countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Country), and have recently embraced environmentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism) and reconstructionist paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic_reconstructionism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Berlet_1990-1999-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Griffin_1995-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Coogan_1999-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Lee_1999-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Griffin_2000-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Antonio_2000-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position#cite_note-Sunshine_2008-6)
Political scientists, such as Roger Griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffin), argue that Third Positionist claims of being "beyond left and right" are specious because Third Positionism is in fact an ideological mutation of the neo-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism) right, which rejects both Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) and liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) for an ultranationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultranationalism) that seeks to achieve a national rebirth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_rebirth) by establishing a confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) of ethnically and racially homogeneous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_homogeneity) communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community) where ownership of productive property is distributed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism) among all members. The main precursors of Third Position politics are National Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism), a synthesis of nationalism and Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) communism, and Strasserism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism), a radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

why do we have to oppose one but support the other? gadaffi is bourgois scum, but the west are THE bourgois scum and history's greatest murderers. i don't support gadaffi and i definitely don't support the west, to do either is to stop supporting the working class. as for the rebels, well aren't they the west now?

libya has shown what a joke the 'revolutionary' left can be. picking and choosing between an arab dictator and an imperialistic coalition of murderers. revolution!

[Fulanito de Tal]

if life was so simple man, if life was so simple.
You dont seem to consider all the options, life is rarely a matter of a and b choice.

Okay

You must like option C) Gadaffi stays as dictator and the US invades!

F- Please see me

[Sasha]

Let me know when you actually read what it says on the site.

i did, i read one that comes down to that those gays should stop wining about those other gays getting hanged and stoned to death because they are playing in the hands of the imperiKKKaliStS...

quite enough for me

[manic expression]

i did, i read one that comes down to that those gays should stop wining about those other gays getting hanged and stoned to death because they are playing in the hands of the imperiKKKaliStS...

quite enough for me
It said that, did it? Post an excerpt, and make sure it's relevant. The last time you posted something in this thread it claimed reconstructionist paganism was part of Gaddafi's politics.

[Sasha]

It said that, did it? Post an excerpt, and make sure it's relevant. The last time you posted something in this thread it claimed reconstructionist paganism was part of Gaddafi's politics.

Lol, Why don't you source that claim first and ill see what I can do from my telephone. Dont know how android friendly the psl website is.

[gorillafuck]

Qaddafi's government is basically a junta. That much is true.

As for people that say the working class is overthrowing Qaddafi, lol. That doesn't make it a working class movement. The working class in Libya, for one, is not majority rebel. But more importantly, they are not overthrowing Qaddafi to institute workers power or as a class movement. The presence of workers does not make something a class movement. The Tea Party's events are not predominantly attended by actual members of the ruling class. Does that make it a workers movement?

[manic expression]

Lol, Why don't you source that claim first and ill see what I can do from my telephone. Dont know how android friendly the psl website is.
From your link that discussed what you claimed was Gaddafi's politics: and have recently embraced environmentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism) and reconstructionist paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic_reconstructionism).

[Sasha]

Wow, that must be the most poorly constructed strawman I have ever seen. That was from the wiki on the whole 3th positionist spectrum. All chickens are birds, not al birds are chickens, the fact that most birds fly doesnt mean chickens fly.

[khad]

All chickens are birds, not al birds are chickens, the fact that most birds fly doesnt mean chickens fly.
But chickens can fly. When I was a kid my uncle had to shoot a runaway rooster off the top of a building in town.

[Sasha]

True, I'm stoned, scrach the chicken and make it a penguin

[manic expression]

Wow, that must be the most poorly constructed strawman I have ever seen. That was from the wiki on the whole 3th positionist spectrum. All chickens are birds, not al birds are chickens, the fact that most birds fly doesnt mean chickens fly.
My point was that your blurb wasn't really about Gaddafi's policies, and didn't at all prove your argument. You might as well have posted the wikipedia entry for cheese.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Has anyone changed positions on the NATO invasion/involvement in Libya since this thread started?

[Luís Henrique]

So...yeah...choices, choices.

I can not in good conscience make one.

Not making a choice is a choice too. And not necessarily a good one.

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL17268002M/The_Devil_and_the_Good_Lord_and_two_other_plays

Luís Henrique