Rebels take Ajdabiyah

[PhoenixAsh]

......So...if anybody still had any illusions the intervention in Libya was supposed to bring an end to the fighting and protect the civilians...and not about bringing regime change or oil..... I have some bad news for you all.

Rebels have taken the oil town of Ajdabiyah.

Now...they did that while being aided by strategic bombardments and attacks by the intervention airforce which was aimed at breaking the government control of the city.

The rebels are now advancing towards the oil port Brega.



So..there you have it. Its a sham. Its about oil. Its about control of oil...and its definately not there to end the fighting or protect the civilian population. Its there to prolong the fighting and to sway that fighting in favor of the rebels.

In Adjibayah there are a lot of civilian casualties...thanks to the bombardsment and thanks to the Rebel take over.

[Palestine]

Man please stop saying it's for the oil, the Europeans had the oil, Gaddafi gave them the oil, when he as a man has 130 billion dollars then something is fucked up.
And as for the cities this is just how the line of cities work Ajdabiyah - Brega and then the other cities since Libya's population and cities are mostly on the coast so they are going by the coast.
And btw for the civilian casualties it's because Gaddafi's militia used heavy artillery on the city, and same thing in Misrata.
What the fuck is the matter with socialists? Everything coming from the West is bad? well the revolution wouldn't have been successful without western aid. And Gaddafi killed his own god damn people.

[Luís Henrique]

I have some bad news for you all.

Rebels have taken the oil town of Ajdabiyah.

These are excellent news.

Down with Gaddafy's corrupt and murderous dictatorship!

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

First off all...the government HAD the city. They were not shelling that city. The Rebels were launching assaults at it for over 6 days now....finally cummulating in bombings of the city by the intervention airforce and resulting taking of the city by the rebels.

Second of all...when exactly did the western countries begin to start shaking the tree of imperialism and intervention? Only after Gadaffi threatened to shut down the oil. Before that there was criticism of Gadaffi, there was an opinion voiced to allow weapons to be send to rebels, and there were even voices he had to go. But there was ONLY talk of intervention AFTER Gadaffi uttered that specific threart.

Now...why exactly do you think they pushed for the specific wording of the resolution? Which goes further than every previous resoution in the history of the UN and specifically allows to move the no-fly zone with the discretion of the opertaional needs.

Now I certainly do not believe in anything comming from the west is good. Nothing the west has EVER done has not been fueled by their own self interest.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeeeeeh for western imperialism and neo-free market forces who are now the true liberators of the working people of Libya.
:rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hail Ghaddafi! Victory to the good colonel! Down with imperialist running dogs!

[Palestine]

Now I certainly do not believe in anything comming from the west is good. Nothing the west has EVER done has not been fueled by their own self interest.

When did you ever hear about anything done in politics that was out of good will? It's a game of interests and it happened that the rebels and the west share the same interest.
And so you know, the oil was shut in the first week of the revolution, Saudi Arabia supplies 700 thousand more barrels to compensate the Libyan 1 million barrel that were shut down. So this is how your argument is invalid.

[PhoenixAsh]

When did you ever hear about anything done in politics that was out of good will? It's a game of interests and it happened that the rebels and the west share the same interest.
And so you know, the oil was shut in the first week of the revolution, Saudi Arabia supplies 700 thousand more barrels to compensate the Libyan 1 million barrel that were shut down. So this is how your argument is invalid.

Unfortunately this is not the case since the oil from Libya has a lower cost per barrel than the oil from SA.
Nor does this negate the fact that shutting down the oil decreases the total oil reserve. Pretty much increasing the costs of the oil thats left.


Now the interests of the rebels pretty much are to bring neo-liberal free market trade to Libya and to devide the population through burgeoisie "democracy" dominated by western oil interests and political influence and increase tribal autonomous power....and its very, very likely that fractionalism and tribalism will rear itys ugly head as soon as the current government has fallen and the wets has established its dominion.

...I am certainly NOT going to cheer for that.

Now...my intention of the initial post was to show that the western so called humanitarian intervention was a sham and balance the slanted and biased dribble that has been spewed on the TV and other media day after day after day. That in no way was intended as support for Gadaffi.

You on the other hand seem to think that collaborating with western imperialists...for which your so called revolutionaries asked...seems to be justified and qualifies the rebels as a group worthy of socialist support. Somehow cheering a regime which will further repress the working class is something possitive.

[manic expression]

These are excellent news.

Down with Gaddafy's corrupt and murderous dictatorship!

Luís Henrique
Collaborator.

[Nehru]

I can't believe anyone on a leftist forum can celebrate an imperialist invasion. Because that's exactly what this is, and all this talk about 'rebels' is just an excuse to show the Libyan govt. in a bad light....

[Princess Luna]

this is good news

[Luís Henrique]

Collaborator.

Bootlicker.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Now the interests of the rebels pretty much are to bring neo-liberal free market trade to Libya and to devide the population through burgeoisie "democracy" dominated by western oil interests and political influence and increase tribal autonomous power....and its very, very likely that fractionalism and tribalism will rear itys ugly head as soon as the current government has fallen and the wets has established its dominion.



This is a weak argument, or at least it is based on weak evidence.

(1) Gaddafi has played tribal games for years, and if there is tribalism today it is only because Gaddafi used it to cement his power. If there is tribal violence, it is because Gaddafi left some tribes poorer than others for political purposes.

(2) There are bourgeois elements in the rebellion ... there are also deeply anti-Western religious fundamentalists, and all sorts of other groups. Perhaps the bourgeois will win the power struggle after the civil war, but to call the rebellion "bourgeois" seems a huge oversimplification. Plenty of Proletarian revolutions have happened by working with parties with different class interests but similar immediate tactical ends, or on the backs of another revolution

(3) Many of the most bourgeois elements of this "transitional council" are themselves defectors from Gaddafi's government, which says a lot about the makeup of said government.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems amongst the rebels, but they are overstated by "anti-imperialists". I'd be more concerned, as a leftist, with maintaining ideological struggle to improve the rebel movement than insulting the brave men dying to topple a strange tyrant.

As for the rebels "taking" Ajdabiya, from what the townspeople were saying it sounds like the Gaddafi troops didn't control it so much as occupied key zones and continued to shell parts of the city they didn't control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MddK9YE749c&feature=player_embedded

Considering the behavior of Gaddafi's men regarding the use of heavy artillery in civilian areas, the rebels have every right to push on. Especially while Gaddafi's thugs continue to shell innocent, unarmed civilians in rebellious Western Libyan cities.

[Rusty Shackleford]

my own hypothesis is that the imperialist intervention is meant to reassert western control over the oil infrastructure in Libya. they had control when Qadhafi gave it up over the last decade but when the demonstrations began and civil war broke out, they feared they were at risk of him cutting them off or Qadhafi pulling a Saddamn and lighting the fields on fire.

forgive me for the rather dramatic video but "Lessons of Darkness" by Werner Herzog comes to mind. this is an edit to Radiohead but it has some of the best footage from the film. it was originally done to classical music. anyways. this was my point.

9t94heQ2Kyc

[Sir Comradical]

Man please stop saying it's for the oil, the Europeans had the oil, Gaddafi gave them the oil, when he as a man has 130 billion dollars then something is fucked up.
And as for the cities this is just how the line of cities work Ajdabiyah - Brega and then the other cities since Libya's population and cities are mostly on the coast so they are going by the coast.
And btw for the civilian casualties it's because Gaddafi's militia used heavy artillery on the city, and same thing in Misrata.
What the fuck is the matter with socialists? Everything coming from the West is bad? well the revolution wouldn't have been successful without western aid. And Gaddafi killed his own god damn people.

Yes, air-strikes from the west are bad.

[Rusty Shackleford]

not all revolutions are inherently good.

"rainbow" revolutions across the former soviet union, the fascist "revolutions" in italy and germany...

with a rebellion this heterogeneous, its hard to tell what will come of it. hell, it could be more of the same thing under a different face and name.

when the west is supporting it is a pretty bad sign though.... and that should be obvious to EVERYONE.

[Luís Henrique]

not all revolutions are inherently good.

"rainbow" revolutions across the former soviet union, the fascist "revolutions" in italy and germany...

What fascist "revolution" in Italy? The fashos staged a "march to Rome" that would have been quickly smashed had the Army been commanded to oppose it (or decided to do so on its own).

There was even less of a fascist "revolution" in Germany. Conservatives convinced themselves, and president Hindemburg, that Hitler could be used as chancellor (which is how Germans call the prime-minister) and then discarded. And so president Hindemburg gave Hitler the position, and Hitler used it for a series of top-down coups against the left, and then against the non-Nazi bourgeois. What revolution?

Luís Henrique

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Hence why he put quote marks around "revolutions"

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hence why he put quote marks around "revolutions"
Luis, refer to this quote, or the post that comes prior to this.

[Luís Henrique]

Hence why he put quote marks around "revolutions"

The fascist power grab in Italy and Germany don't deserve the word even with brackets aroud it, though.

Luís Henrique

[Rusty Shackleford]

The fascist power grab in Italy and Germany don't deserve the word even with brackets aroud it, though.

Luís Henrique


revolution to most means simply a change in government type. revolution is a forward moving process, not a process of reaction though. which i will agree with you on (assuming this is your stance on the word)

the "rainbow revolutions" were reactionary, same with the fascist takeovers.

this is why i used the extreme example of fascism. not all changes are inherently good. if you want to call it a revolution, not all revolutions are inherently good.

[gorillafuck]

I feel it's very important to cheer on a side in this conflict between Qaddafi and between the rebels, just as it was important to cheer on on either Milosevic or the KLA.

[PhoenixAsh]

I feel it's very important to cheer on a side in this conflict between Qaddafi and between the rebels, just as it was important to cheer on on either Milosevic or the KLA.


ok...why do you think that?

[gorillafuck]

ok...why do you think that?I don't really know but I'm sure I will once I read the logic of the threads on revleft about this!

[psgchisolm]

If you defend the rebels you are you an Imperialist, and possibly a monarchist/bourgeois supporter because the revolution isn't a direct socialist one and because they use a monarchist flag.
If you defend Gaddafi you are supporting an oppressive and corrupt dictator.
You literally can't win on this topic. Either you support anti-imperialism or you support a monarchist rebel movement. All it eventually degrades to is "You support imperialist intervention!1!!1" and "Well you support a corrupt dictator who bombs his own civilians!!!1!!one!"

[Rusty Shackleford]

the only solid position is that of anti-intervention.


imperialist powers have no right to intervene, and no justification to do so either.

both sides in the conflict are kinda shitty.

[Princess Luna]

If you defend the rebels you are you an Imperialist, and possibly a monarchist/bourgeois supporter because the revolution isn't a direct socialist one.
If you defend Gaddafi you are supporting an oppressive and corrupt dictator.
You literally can't win on this topic. Either you support anti-imperialism or you support a monarchist rebel movement. All it eventually degrades to is "You support imperialist intervention!1!!1" and "Well you support a corrupt dictator who bombs his own civilians!!!1!!one!"
Except the rebels are not Monarchists, in a interview with Al Jazeera, one of the rebels explained the reason the flag was chosen was because it represents Libya before Gaddafi not because they have any desire to see the Monarchy come back into power.

[Geiseric]

Don't some maoists and marxist leninists support radical islam for being anti-imperialist?

on a different note, in my opinion nato is doing the right thing
for the wrong reason, and the post revolutionary government won't be pro-imperialist, they're not stupid. They're meerly accepting this aid to help them in the same way that Stalin accepted some aid from the U.S. And the allies to help on the eastern front. The rebels know their priorities, and won't let their government be taken over by imperialists. Times have changed from when that could have happened, this may be a populist movement, but these rebels would be more anti-imperialist than quadaffi and they wouldn't oppress their own people like quadaffi does.

[psgchisolm]

Except the rebels are not Monarchists, in a interview with Al Jazeera, one of the rebels explained the reason the flag was chosen was because it represents Libya before Gaddafi not because they have any desire to see the Monarchy come back into power.
I know this. I was just showing what the anti-imps use as a counterclaim against the pro-rebels.;) I may need to specify that..