"Rebels beat me unconscious, raped my wife, and threw me in prison"

[khad]

Or that is what this guy would say if he just happened to have access to a gaggle of foreign press and weren't so conveniently "disappeared" by his rebel captors.

Rape is a heinous crime that deserves a thread; this incident more than qualifies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/in-a-rebel-prison-any-african-is-a-mercenary/article1960597/


During a recent visit to a prison in Benghazi where rebels are keeping suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters, Mr. Bouckaert said the majority were African migrant workers with documentation of their employment, mistakenly rounded up during hunts for mercenaries and pro-regime agents.

In one case, he said, an elderly man from Gambia told him that three young rebels broke into his house, raped his young wife, and beat him unconscious. He was jailed, with severe head injuries.

During a visit to the same prison on Monday, rebels told The Globe and Mail that the elderly man had been transferred to another facility.
Human rights groups have warned that such accusations are frequently wrong, endangering people with the wrong complexion. A video circulated among rebels showed the corpse of a dark-skinned man hanging from a meat hook, allegedly an African mercenary killed by angry locals.

The streets of rebel cities have become somewhat safer for people of sub-Saharan heritage since the chaotic early days of the rebellion, but observers say migrants can still get arrested or killed on the slightest pretext.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, and this one guy told me that this other bloke told him that the Rebels are Cthulhu worshipers.

Got anything that is actually solid?

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah an anonymous report of prison hearsay qualifies as a report, now?

[Chimurenga.]

This forum is really ridiculous and disgusting at the same time. Did any you actually read this article?

The report was an account given to Human Rights Watch by the man whose wife was raped. Of course, now he's beyond reach since the rebels took it upon themselves to "transfer" him to another facility.

So you have 3 levels of sourcing here: Firsthand account from the aggrieved, Human Rights Watch, and the rebels own claim that they've transferred the prisoner.

Since you liberals love NGOs like Human Rights Watch, I would've thought you'd be all over this. Too funny.

[Jose Gracchus]

How am I a "liberal"? I've consistently opposed the intervention, and condemned to all who will hear me in categorical terms, as imperialism. In any case, you're right, the HRW man said he met the man.

[gorillafuck]

Some people on this forum support the intervention.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't. In fact, I've posted to the fact that this about building pliant neoliberal quasi-post-Soviet bloc hell holes, not about humanitarian assistance repeatedly.

[khad]

^You have an annoying propensity to make everything about "mememe." Please quit while you're ahead.

To get this thread back on track:

Hypocrisy, thy name is revleft.

[#FF0000]

pro-gadaffi ppl - UGH LOOK AT THIS AWFUL CRIME. HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SUPPORT THIS SIDE

anti-gadaffi ppl - UGH LOOK AT THIS AWFUL CRIME. HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SUPPORT THIS SIDE

[PhoenixAsh]

The whole situation is a huge clusterfuck.

A dictator
A group of highly diffuse and mostly reactionary rebels
A cluster of neo-imperialists

All of which commit and are reponsible for crimes....and all of which violate vital pillars of our respective tendencies.

[DrStrangelove]

The situation in Libya is a game of power being played by a horrid despot, a group of opportunistic imperialists, and a mob of various reactionary rebels.

In the end, the Libyan workers lose, no matter who wins at this game.

[Blackscare]

I have to say, as other people have pretty much said already, that this back-and-forth sniping both sides are doing over this forum, posting various stories that condemn the actions of one side and then adding commentary desperately (and pathetically) attempting to justify the other side, only serves to illustrate how absolutely intellectually and ethically barren both are in this conflict. By extension, it demonstrates the same about the various camps on this site.


The temptation for leftists is of course today (given how marginalized we all are) to "pick" a side in various world events happening that we have almost literally no influence over. The ironic thing is, people often attack those that stick true to good 'ol proletarian internationalism and refuse to pick sides with equally indefensible regimes on the basis that it is useless sloganeering, echoing good sentiments to no audience and with no demonstrable effects. Well, this is the exact same thing that the so-called "anti-imperialists" and "interventionalists" are doing, considering that they have no power or influence, with the exception that they are trying to co-opt some sense of legitimacy by speculating about the relative merits of various bourgeois governments, so that they can hopefully have taken the "right" position and have that on record in the future, much like bourgeois politicians.


Whatever position you take will still be all but irrelevant, but I don't see that as an excuse to abandon what we stand for in order to have a "place" in the debate. We communists have our position, and it is a clear one: the emancipation of the working class by the working class itself. Maybe nobody wants to hear a few communists ranting about proletarian revolt or revolutionary defeatism while bourgeois media is afire with debate about Libya, but that doesn't mean that we should engage the debate on their terms. When we do that, we're essentially falling into the same trap that people do when they vote for the lesser evil in elections, you legitimize the mainstream political discourse by taking part in it within it's own parameters. You legitimize one or another bourgeois faction by deeming one more or less acceptable, and by doing that you implicitly legitimize the entire system. Neither of the two most plausible outcomes to this will be a boon to the working class, and it's time that people do away with these delusions.



One the one hand, you have the naive who actually believe that the rebels are "good" or "progressive" in any sort of way that any communist with spine could recognize, and on the other you have a camp of people who support the continuation of various regimes that are anti-working class entirely on the basis that the alternative, in terms of living standards etc, would be worse. The latter position to me basically just boils down to comparing various statistics and indexes in order to determine which immediate option will be 'better' for people in the short term. Well, revolutionary communism should not be about picking which outcome will make this or that graph go up or down, it should be about placing the economy under the control of the workers, something that opportunistically and pathologically aligning with the lesser evil will never accomplish. Not trying to pick on one side over another, it's just that one is really simple naive liberalism and the other actually constitutes a more nuanced (and in my opinion, more systemically dangerous) position, and thus takes a little extra time to critique.





This was sort of an ambling, stoned rant, so take from it what you will. :cool:

[#FF0000]

while both sides are hella bad I think it's pretty funny that "anti-imperialists" will support people and groups that butcher working class people, like Ahmadinejad and Gadaffi and will bring up meager social welfare programs to defend them as the "more progressive" option but at the same time would never ever suggest anyone ever vote for or support Labor over the Tories or Democrats over the Republicans even thought they do literally. the same. things.

[RadioRaheem84]

while both sides are hella bad I think it's pretty funny that "anti-imperialists" will support people and groups that butcher working class people, like Ahmadinejad and Gadaffi and will bring up meager social welfare programs to defend them as the "more progressive" option but at the same time would never ever suggest anyone ever vote for or support Labor over the Tories or Democrats over the Republicans even thought they do literally. the same. things.

How is the concept of being anti-government but also anti-imperialist so lost on some of you?

[Jose Gracchus]

I think these things should be couched in practical terms, so they don't turn into airy "who I do support" yadda yadda. We in Western states can protest, can try to build anti-imperialist oppositions to interventions and imperialism, it was done in the past and it can be done again. That's our role. Our role is to try to build a barrier against the freedom of our capitalist state to wield imperial power. We have no place assisting and aiding and abetting our own militarism - and since none of you are flying to fight for the rebels, I think that leaves our position in pretty stark relief.

[#FF0000]

How is the concept of being anti-government but also anti-imperialist so lost on some of you?

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

that's me, actually, bro.

see: first sentence.

[khad]

The point of this thread is neither pro nor anti Gaddafi or rebel.

I simply wish to point out the obvious that while stories of barbarism and atrocity tend to evoke emotional responses from people, there's clearly a double standard involved, both on the media level (why is one case of two similar cases given priority over the other?) and on the personal level (for some here it's obviously ok when one side does it).

And here you can see idle Western leftists stroking their own egos, pontificating on abstractions like "support," "alignment," and "theoretical nuance" - as if any of your positions matter one whit. Unless I see you doing what you can do - speaking out against your country's militarism or pointing out discrepancies in media reporting - all this is nothing more than hot air.

What is lost in this "discussion" are the facts of the case. That there is a looming humanitarian crisis of extrajudicial killings and disappearances in rebel controlled areas that could very easily be as problematic the actions committed by government forces in their offensives on rebel areas.

The climate on this board is such that one cannot even talk about the shortcomings of the rebels without being labeled a Gaddafi partisan. Thank you all (with a few exceptions; you know who you are) for proving this point so handsomely.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Revolutionaries are not infallible, an oppressed rapist is still a rapist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

How am I a "liberal"? I've consistently opposed the intervention, and condemned to all who will hear me in categorical terms, as imperialism. In any case, you're right, the HRW man said he met the man.

:rolleyes: Is that what you said when you were supporting Obama during election campaign as well?

[RadioRaheem84]

Revolutionaries are not infallible, an oppressed rapist is still a rapist.
weak. really went over your head didn't it?

[Princess Luna]

:rolleyes: Is that what you said when you were supporting Obama during election campaign as well?
whoaa man, thats like totally a buuuurnnn

Oh and to everyone saying the rebels are a bunch of reactionarys, i will just leave you with this picture
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/3/27/2011327205157419965_9.jpg

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I saw that picture on Al Jazeera. Also goes against the story that the rebels are all anti-black.

The rebels are heterogeneous. There are some horrible people among the rebels of course. There are also people who probably aren't well educated or disciplined. It's a disorganized force, and so it is not a consistent or structured movement. This means the rebels will do things that should be condemned, like this act mentioned by Khad. But of course, no rebellion ever happened in history without atrocities. I think Leftists should be critical of the rebels without dismissing them or their general agenda, which is the removal of a despot. We should be more critical of certain movements within the rebels, ie neoliberalism or tribalism, not the rebels in general who include reactionaries but also seem to include all sorts of other people who just want Gaddafi gone or in the ground.

[Threetune]

pro-gadaffi ppl - UGH LOOK AT THIS AWFUL CRIME. HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SUPPORT THIS SIDE

anti-gadaffi ppl - UGH LOOK AT THIS AWFUL CRIME. HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SUPPORT THIS SIDE

pro-communist ppl - WHICH IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROLETARION DICTATORSHIP?

[Threetune]

I saw that picture on Al Jazeera. Also goes against the story that the rebels are all anti-black.

The rebels are heterogeneous. There are some horrible people among the rebels of course. There are also people who probably aren't well educated or disciplined. It's a disorganized force, and so it is not a consistent or structured movement. This means the rebels will do things that should be condemned, like this act mentioned by Khad. But of course, no rebellion ever happened in history without atrocities. I think Leftists should be critical of the rebels without dismissing them or their general agenda, which is the removal of a despot. We should be more critical of certain movements within the rebels, ie neoliberalism or tribalism, not the rebels in general who include reactionaries but also seem to include all sorts of other people who just want Gaddafi gone or in the ground.

Why not be critical of the Che supporters, if that’s what your “rebels in general” really are, for not purging their ranks of “reactionaries” and “neoliberalism”? Oh, and other "horrible people".

[Chimurenga.]

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/3/27/2011327205157419965_9.jpg

So what?

http://www.twolia.com/blogs/zoboxrox/files/2009/03/michael_steele_0220.jpg

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/11/MichaelSteele_a6903.jpg


Oh and to everyone saying the rebels are a bunch of reactionarys, i will just leave you with this picture

I hate to burst your little bubble but Che Guevara's image is known to the rest of the world as a symbol of rebellion. It doesn't mean that the person photographed next to Che's image is a progressive revolutionary and it doesn't mean that he isn't.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why not be critical of the Che supporters, if that’s what your “rebels in general” really are, for not purging their ranks of “reactionaries” and “neoliberalism”? Oh, and other "horrible people".

Where on earth did I say that the "rebels in general" were "Che supporters"? I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying the rebels are heterogeneous and include all sorts of people.

Why don't leftwing rebels "purge" the reactionaries? Considering there is no formal "Organization" of Rebels for reactionaries to be "Purged" from and the rebels are still fighting to topple Gaddafi, the revolution clearly hasn't reached the stage where the revolutionaries fight in amongst themselves for dominance.

[TC]

its ridiculous that when government forces are accused of doing the exact same thing (raping and arbitrarily arresting someone) everyone automatically believes it but when the rebels are accused of raping and arbitrarily arresting someone everyone becomes immediately skeptical - like the rebels are on the side of the angels just because they have US military backing. The reality is that we have no reason at all to favor the military junta in Bengazhi above the military junta in Tripoli, they are both undemocratic military governments.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I'd just like to point out, there are like six different rebel groups or alliances. The one the US is supporting is made up almost exlusively of recent deserters fromt he Ghaddafi regime. There ARE other groups of rebels. Can't know much about them though, because everyone is focusing on the new pets of the imperialists.

[Threetune]

Where on earth did I say that the "rebels in general" were "Che supporters"? I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying the rebels are heterogeneous and include all sorts of people.

Why don't leftwing rebels "purge" the reactionaries? Considering there is no formal "Organization" of Rebels for reactionaries to be "Purged" from and the rebels are still fighting to topple Gaddafi, the revolution clearly hasn't reached the stage where the revolutionaries fight in amongst themselves for dominance.

I did not misunderstand anything about your post and before we go any further with this, let’s be absolutely clear what you said.

“Also goes against the story that the rebels are all anti-black.” So what did you mean by “Also” if you did not mean to infer that the man in the picture was a Che supporting rebel of some kind?

However, even if you were given the benefit of any doubt (not by me) and you were not inferring the man was a Che supporter, you clearly think that your “heterogeneous” rebels contain “reactionaries” “neoliberalism” or “tribalism” and “horrible people” as well as “people who probably aren't well educated or disciplined.”

So, are there any people who you can categorically identify at this time as even progressive in any way among this “heterogeneous” band “in general”?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What exactly are you trying to say? The man in the picture does appear to be a person who supports the ideas of Che Guevara, though he may just be a person with the image not knowing its full context. That doesn't mean the rebels "in general" are Leftists, nor are they "in general" reactionaries and rightwingers. As I said before, they appear to be heterogeneous.

[Threetune]

What exactly are you trying to say? The man in the picture does appear to be a person who supports the ideas of Che Guevara, though he may just be a person with the image not knowing its full context. That doesn't mean the rebels "in general" are Leftists, nor are they "in general" reactionaries and rightwingers. As I said before, they appear to be heterogeneous.


So why can you only identify “reactionaries” among them? "heterogeneous reactionaries in general” in fact.

[RATM-Eubie]

Can i just say the rebels are a clusterfuck of many different ideas?

[Threetune]

Can i just say the rebels are a clusterfuck of many different ideas?

Well Shiva has identified the reactionaries now can you identify the communists among them?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh and to everyone saying the rebels are a bunch of reactionarys, i will just leave you with this picture
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/3/27/2011327205157419965_9.jpg

Yeah, because this COMPLETELY justifies the mass executions, lynchings, and imprisonment of African migrants! :rolleyes:

You're a fucking joke.

[Omsk]

That picture means nothing.It would be like if i would post this pic:
http://www.bills-bunker.privat.t-online.de/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_164901/91c408b24e94a8c2ffff82faac14422e.jpg
and say: "Hey!These Waffen SS troops have a soviet flag,they must be communists and must be fighting on the Soviet side!!"

[Invader Zim]

This forum is really ridiculous and disgusting at the same time. Did any you actually read this article?

The report was an account given to Human Rights Watch by the man whose wife was raped. Of course, now he's beyond reach since the rebels took it upon themselves to "transfer" him to another facility.

So you have 3 levels of sourcing here: Firsthand account from the aggrieved, Human Rights Watch, and the rebels own claim that they've transferred the prisoner.

Since you liberals love NGOs like Human Rights Watch, I would've thought you'd be all over this. Too funny.


Did any you actually read this article?

Yes, but manifestly you did not.


The report was an account given to Human Rights Watch by the man who claimed his wife was raped.

I've corrected the above quote.

Which is hearsay, indeed it is not even a second hand account, but a third hand account (assuming the event actually took place); furthermore an account by a guy locked up by the rebels, and therefore with clear motive to attack them and their reputation.

Don't get me wrong, this could well have happened, but what we require are better sources; preferably the victim herself.


So you have 3 levels of sourcing here: Firsthand account from the aggrieved, Human Rights Watch, and the rebels own claim that they've transferred the prisoner.

Your ability to comprehend the written word is clear testament to the failure of modern western education.


its ridiculous that when government forces are accused of doing the exact same thing (raping and arbitrarily arresting someone) everyone automatically believes it but when the rebels are accused of raping and arbitrarily arresting someone everyone becomes immediately skeptical

With respect, my own objection to the article is not derived from a distaste for the government forces and an emotional attachment to the rebels, but rather it is because the source provided in the quoted article is hardly sound. That is not a subjective analysis, but grounded on the basic tenets of empirical analysis.

[The Red Next Door]

This should be called Revright or better revrape.

[RATM-Eubie]

Well Shiva has identified the reactionaries now can you identify the communists among them?

Well saying that the Rebels are supported and stand behind the National Transitional Council i would say that the vast majority are just in support of democracy and overthrowing a dictator... Would you not say that? Certainly that there are probably monarchists, and fundamentalists that support the overthrow of Gadaffi but we always see people who come in support of a certain goal to overthrow someone then democracy is initiated and then comes the splits...
Hell the National Transitional Council affirms that under new law you would be able to form unions....
I quote from the National Transitional Council
"
A vision of a democratic Libya

The interim national council hereby presents its vision for rebuilding the democratic state of Libya. This vision responds to the needs and aspirations of our people, while incorporating the historical changes brought about by the 17 February revolution.
We have learnt from the struggles of our past during the dark days of dictatorship that there is no alternative to building a free and democratic society and ensuring the supremacy of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations. This can only be achieved through dialogue, tolerance, co-operation, national cohesiveness and the active participation of all citizens. As we are familiar with being ruled by the authoritarian dictatorship of one man, the political authority that we seek must represent the free will of the people, without exclusion or suppression of any voice.
The lessons of our past will outline our social contract through the need to respect the interests of all groups and classes that comprise the fabric of our society and not compromise the interests of one at the expense of the other. It is this social contract that must lead us to a civil society that recognises intellectual and political pluralism and allows for the peaceful transfer of power through legal institutions and ballot boxes; in accordance with a national constitution crafted by the people and endorsed in a referendum.
To that end, we will outline our aspirations for a modern, free and united state, following the defeat of the illegal Gaddafi regime. The interim national council will be guided by the following in our continuing march to freedom, through espousing the principles of political democracy. We recognise without reservation our obligation to:
1. Draft a national constitution that clearly defines its nature, essence and purpose and establishes legal, political, civil, legislative, executive and judicial institutions. The constitution will also clarify the rights and obligations of citizens in a transparent manner, thus separating and balancing the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political organisations and civil institutions including the formation of political parties, popular organisations, unions, societies and other civil and peaceful associations.
3. Maintain a constitutional civil and free state by upholding intellectual and political pluralism and the peaceful transfer of power, opening the way for genuine political participation, without discrimination.
4. Guarantee every Libyan citizen, of statutory age, the right to vote in free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as the right to run for office.
5. Guarantee and respect the freedom of expression through media, peaceful protests, demonstrations and sit-ins and other means of communication, in accordance with the constitution and its laws in a way that protects public security and social peace.
6. A state that draws strength from our strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. Political democracy and the values of social justice, which include:
a. The nation’s economy to be used for the benefit of the Libyan people by creating effective economic institutions in order to eradicate poverty and unemployment – working towards a healthy society, a green environment and a prosperous economy.
b. The development of genuine economic partnerships between a strong and productive public sector, a free private sector and a supportive and effective civil society, which overstands corruption and waste.
c. Support the use of science and technology for the betterment of society, through investments in education, research and development, thus enabling the encouragement of an innovative culture and enhancing the spirit of creativity. Focus on emphasising individual rights in a way that guarantees social freedoms that were denied to the Libyan people during the rule of dictatorship. In addition to building efficient public and private institutions and funds for social care, integration and solidarity, the state will guarantee the rights and empowerment of women in all legal, political, economic and cultural spheres.
d. A constitutional civil state which respects the sanctity of religious doctrine and condemns intolerance, extremism and violence that are manufactured by certain political, social or economic interests. The state to which we aspire will denounce violence, terrorism, intolerance and cultural isolation; while respecting human rights, rules and principles of citizenship and the rights of minorities and those most vulnerable. Every individual will enjoy the full rights of citizenship, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity or social status.
8. Build a democratic Libya whose international and regional relationships will be based upon:
a. The embodiment of democratic values and institutions which respects its neighbours, builds partnerships and recognises the independence and sovereignty of other nations. The state will also seek to enhance regional integration and international co-operation through its participation with members of the international community in achieving international peace and security.
b. A state which will uphold the values of international justice, citizenship, the respect of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations, as well as condemning authoritarian and despotic regimes. The interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected. Immigration, residency and citizenship will be managed by government institutions, respecting the principles and rights of political asylum and public liberties.
c. A state which will join the international community in rejecting and denouncing racism, discrimination and terrorism while strongly supporting peace, democracy and freedom."

[RATM-Eubie]

This should be called Revright or better revrape.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I love me some Stalnists!
"If you disagree with me your a liberal right winger!" :laugh:

[The Red Next Door]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I love me some Stalnists!
"If you disagree with me your a liberal right winger!" :laugh:

You are a liberal right winger, you a freaking green.

[Wanted Man]

I saw that picture on Al Jazeera. Also goes against the story that the rebels are all anti-black.

The rebels are heterogeneous. There are some horrible people among the rebels of course. There are also people who probably aren't well educated or disciplined. It's a disorganized force, and so it is not a consistent or structured movement. This means the rebels will do things that should be condemned, like this act mentioned by Khad. But of course, no rebellion ever happened in history without atrocities. I think Leftists should be critical of the rebels without dismissing them or their general agenda, which is the removal of a despot. We should be more critical of certain movements within the rebels, ie neoliberalism or tribalism, not the rebels in general who include reactionaries but also seem to include all sorts of other people who just want Gaddafi gone or in the ground.

And yet:



Gaddafi's Libya, of course, kept it classy by blaming the victim.

Leftists who continue to support this bullshit government are implicitly supporting a sexist regime.

Also, the depth of the Libyan police state should be clear for all posters to see, in case there were any lingering questions about the tyrannical nature of this government. They won't let the press talk to the victim of an egregious crime, and they abuse her when she tries to tell her story. Of course, now she has probably been arrested and is facing an uncertain fate. Perhaps she will come out "recanting" her story after some time in one of the dungeons of the green "revolution".

http://www.revleft.com/vb/they-lybian-soldiers-t152081/index.html

:confused:

[RATM-Eubie]

You are a liberal right winger, you a freaking green.

Yea i guess sense "liberal right wingers" believe in workplace democracy, and syndicalism....... Sweet shit man:rolleyes:
Typical typical typical :sleep:

[Invader Zim]

You are a liberal right winger, you a freaking green.

A self-proclaimed stalinist accusing a leftist of being rightwing? :rolleyes:

Talk about pots and kettles; you guys are among the most reactionary pond life out there.

PS. I am amused to see that you neg. reped me without offering a line of critique that would provide me with insight as to why I should not consider the story in the opening post hearsay. I guess you aren't just a reactionary, but an intellectually dishonest reactionary to boot.

[The Red Next Door]

Yea i guess sense "liberal right wingers" believe in workplace democracy, and syndicalism....... Sweet shit man:rolleyes:
Typical typical typical :sleep:

No, the fact that you are a member of the fucking green party, a cappie.

[RATM-Eubie]

No, the fact that you are a member of the fucking green party, a cappie.


Really sense i am a a member of a certain party that makes me a "cappie?" :(Hmmm... I see this kind of knowledge? You have a really awesome sense of knowledge boy genius! :sleep:

P.S. Im not a member of the Greens.... I support them yes.....

[The Red Next Door]

Really sense i am a a member of a certain party that makes me a "cappie?" :(Hmmm... I see this kind of knowledge? You have a really awesome sense of knowledge boy genius! :sleep:

P.S. Im not a member of the Greens.... I support them yes.....

there program is overall capitalist, why not be with the spusa?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i don't know what's worse, people supporting gadaffi, or people who support western-backed, former gadaffi official-led rebels, who we know nothing of other than that they have an imperialistic power backed bourgeois leadership!

2 questions for pro rebel posters: 1, did you back the western led regime change for 'democracy' in iraq? 2, did you choose sides between saddam and bush?

oh and for the sake of those questions, we assume that the rebels are backed by imperial powers, a common fact. we then assume that the rebels have a bourgeois leadership, as highlighted on their website. the war in libya has one fundamental difference to iraq's war; the offensive came internally. a fundamental similarity is that the war serves the interests of international capitalists, but has been given the veneer of a war for 'democracy'. one fundamental thing the left should have learnt by now is that it should not support the wars of the bourgeois, whether they are led by bush, obama or a council of ex-gadaffi crooks.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

you don't have to be a gadaffi supporter to see that either. i don't support gadaffi, but that doesn't mean i have to support another bourgeois army just because some idiot on revleft found a picture of a black rebel, like skin colour makes a difference to their bourgeois leadership.

[RATM-Eubie]

there program is overall capitalist, why not be with the spusa?

Why? Mainly because i agree with their 10 key values, and am a huge fan of Ralph Nader who affiliates himself with them. But im also a fan of the Democratic Socialists Party (oh wait they are probably "cappies" too!)... If you want to talk about my political views message me or something this thread is about Libya i believe not RATM-Eubies personal decisions to decide on what parties he supports....

[RATM-Eubie]

i don't know what's worse, people supporting gadaffi, or people who support western-backed, former gadaffi official-led rebels, who we know nothing of other than that they have an imperialistic power backed bourgeois leadership!

2 questions for pro rebel posters: 1, did you back the western led regime change for 'democracy' in iraq? 2, did you choose sides between saddam and bush?

oh and for the sake of those questions, we assume that the rebels are backed by imperial powers, a common fact. we then assume that the rebels have a bourgeois leadership, as highlighted on their website. the war in libya has one fundamental difference to iraq's war; the offensive came internally. a fundamental similarity is that the war serves the interests of international capitalists, but has been given the veneer of a war for 'democracy'. one fundamental thing the left should have learnt by now is that it should not support the wars of the bourgeois, whether they are led by bush, obama or a council of ex-gadaffi crooks.

Big difference between Iraq and Libya buddy.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Big difference between Iraq and Libya buddy.

what's the difference? both countries had bourgeois armies fighting for regime change in the name of 'democracy'. sure there are other differences, but their class characters are the same, and that is where our priorities lie.

[Princess Luna]

what's the difference? both countries had bourgeois armies fighting for regime change in the name of 'democracy'. sure there are other differences, but their class character are the same.
The Iraq war was led by the U.S.
The Libyan Civil war is led by the Libyan people
thats the difference... Had the Iraqi people risen up on their own to over-throw Saddam Hussein and the the U.S. just provided support without sending any ground forces i would have probally supported it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The Iraq war was led by the U.S.
The Libyan Civil war is led by the Libyan people
thats the difference...

the civil war is not led by the people, it is led by an army with a strictly bourgeois agenda. the iraq war is the same, just a bigger army. the interests are however the same.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The Iraq war was led by the U.S.
The Libyan Civil war is led by the Libyan people
thats the difference... Had the Iraqi people risen up on their own to over-throw Saddam Hussein and the the U.S. just provided support without sending any ground forces i would have probally supported it.

so you support bourgeois intervention into the struggle for working class emancipation?

[RATM-Eubie]

what's the difference? both countries had bourgeois armies fighting for regime change in the name of 'democracy'. sure there are other differences, but their class characters are the same, and that is where our priorities lie.

Ill restate what i said earlier.
You seem like you think America is going to occupy Libya like they occupied Iraq... Many differences between Libya and Iraq. For one there was not a popular uprising going on against the government like there was (is) going on in Libya. Another Iraq was a full scale invasion against it, and plans were laid out to occupy the country. The Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, this revolt is viewed in favor by the majority of Muslim countries. In Iraq there was no uprising going on in 2002-2003 when the US invaded.
Another is that America only initiated a no fly zone, not a full invasion they are nor supplying the rebels with weapons or troops or anything like that...

[RATM-Eubie]

the civil war is not led by the people, it is led by an army with a strictly bourgeois agenda. the iraq war is the same, just a bigger army. the interests are however the same.


Ehhh what media? The state controls the media in Libya....

[Obs]

Why? Mainly because i agree with their 10 key values, and am a huge fan of Ralph Nader who affiliates himself with them. But im also a fan of the Democratic Socialists Party (oh wait they are probably "cappies" too!)... If you want to talk about my political views message me or something this thread is about Libya i believe not RATM-Eubies personal decisions to decide on what parties he supports....

Can this reformist fuck get restricted already?

[RATM-Eubie]

Can this reformist fuck get restricted already?

:crying:
ok boy........... You dont know any of my view buddy ol pal

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Ill restate what i said earlier.
You seem like you think America is going to occupy Libya like they occupied Iraq... Many differences between Libya and Iraq. For one there was not a popular uprising going on against the government like there was (is) going on in Libya. Another Iraq was a full scale invasion against it, and plans were laid out to occupy the country.

you don't get it at all. the interests behind the libyan rebels are the same as the interests of the west. to repeat myself, that is the fundamental similarity between iraq and libya, both are countries that have wars with armies that don't represent them. they support the bourgeois, rather than the workers, which is why the left shouldn't be blindly supporting anyone. yes libya had an uprising, the fact that you blindly support the bourgeois hi-jacking of this uprising shows where your class principles lie. as for the support of other muslim countries, do you mean those other dictatorships in the region?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

that should read 'both are countries with armies that don't represent the working class'. and i meant to point out that the fact that libya had an uprising is a fundamental difference to iraq, but the class characters of the wars are the same. we don't side with the bourgeois.

[Threetune]

Well saying that the Rebels are supported and stand behind the National Transitional Council i would say that the vast majority are just in support of democracy and overthrowing a dictator... Would you not say that? Certainly that there are probably monarchists, and fundamentalists that support the overthrow of Gadaffi but we always see people who come in support of a certain goal to overthrow someone then democracy is initiated and then comes the splits...
Hell the National Transitional Council affirms that under new law you would be able to form unions....
I quote from the National Transitional Council
"
A vision of a democratic Libya

The interim national council hereby presents its vision for rebuilding the democratic state of Libya. This vision responds to the needs and aspirations of our people, while incorporating the historical changes brought about by the 17 February revolution.
We have learnt from the struggles of our past during the dark days of dictatorship that there is no alternative to building a free and democratic society and ensuring the supremacy of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations. This can only be achieved through dialogue, tolerance, co-operation, national cohesiveness and the active participation of all citizens. As we are familiar with being ruled by the authoritarian dictatorship of one man, the political authority that we seek must represent the free will of the people, without exclusion or suppression of any voice.
The lessons of our past will outline our social contract through the need to respect the interests of all groups and classes that comprise the fabric of our society and not compromise the interests of one at the expense of the other. It is this social contract that must lead us to a civil society that recognises intellectual and political pluralism and allows for the peaceful transfer of power through legal institutions and ballot boxes; in accordance with a national constitution crafted by the people and endorsed in a referendum.
To that end, we will outline our aspirations for a modern, free and united state, following the defeat of the illegal Gaddafi regime. The interim national council will be guided by the following in our continuing march to freedom, through espousing the principles of political democracy. We recognise without reservation our obligation to:
1. Draft a national constitution that clearly defines its nature, essence and purpose and establishes legal, political, civil, legislative, executive and judicial institutions. The constitution will also clarify the rights and obligations of citizens in a transparent manner, thus separating and balancing the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political organisations and civil institutions including the formation of political parties, popular organisations, unions, societies and other civil and peaceful associations.
3. Maintain a constitutional civil and free state by upholding intellectual and political pluralism and the peaceful transfer of power, opening the way for genuine political participation, without discrimination.
4. Guarantee every Libyan citizen, of statutory age, the right to vote in free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as the right to run for office.
5. Guarantee and respect the freedom of expression through media, peaceful protests, demonstrations and sit-ins and other means of communication, in accordance with the constitution and its laws in a way that protects public security and social peace.
6. A state that draws strength from our strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. Political democracy and the values of social justice, which include:
a. The nation’s economy to be used for the benefit of the Libyan people by creating effective economic institutions in order to eradicate poverty and unemployment – working towards a healthy society, a green environment and a prosperous economy.
b. The development of genuine economic partnerships between a strong and productive public sector, a free private sector and a supportive and effective civil society, which overstands corruption and waste.
c. Support the use of science and technology for the betterment of society, through investments in education, research and development, thus enabling the encouragement of an innovative culture and enhancing the spirit of creativity. Focus on emphasising individual rights in a way that guarantees social freedoms that were denied to the Libyan people during the rule of dictatorship. In addition to building efficient public and private institutions and funds for social care, integration and solidarity, the state will guarantee the rights and empowerment of women in all legal, political, economic and cultural spheres.
d. A constitutional civil state which respects the sanctity of religious doctrine and condemns intolerance, extremism and violence that are manufactured by certain political, social or economic interests. The state to which we aspire will denounce violence, terrorism, intolerance and cultural isolation; while respecting human rights, rules and principles of citizenship and the rights of minorities and those most vulnerable. Every individual will enjoy the full rights of citizenship, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity or social status.
8. Build a democratic Libya whose international and regional relationships will be based upon:
a. The embodiment of democratic values and institutions which respects its neighbours, builds partnerships and recognises the independence and sovereignty of other nations. The state will also seek to enhance regional integration and international co-operation through its participation with members of the international community in achieving international peace and security.
b. A state which will uphold the values of international justice, citizenship, the respect of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations, as well as condemning authoritarian and despotic regimes. The interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected. Immigration, residency and citizenship will be managed by government institutions, respecting the principles and rights of political asylum and public liberties.
c. A state which will join the international community in rejecting and denouncing racism, discrimination and terrorism while strongly supporting peace, democracy and freedom."

All this hogwash from National Transitional Council will be familiar to workers everywhere and should put the Libyan workers on their guard.

As Shiva said, “heterogeneous” “reactionaries” “in general”.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Libyan Civil war is led by the Libyan people


http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg

[RATM-Eubie]

All this hogwash from National Transitional Council will be familiar to workers everywhere and should put the Libyan workers on their guard.

As Shiva said, “heterogeneous” “reactionaries” “in general”.

Why should this put them on their "guard"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why should this put them on their "guard"?

Do you even know who's part of the NCLO? Here's a post that I made on this topic:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html


"the rebels have created a government-in-waiting known as the National Transitional Council. [...] The group includes activists who have fought Gaddafi for decades and recent defectors. At times, the national council doesn’t speak with a unified voice; day-to-day operations seem disorganized, even precarious."

In other words, we have a "transitional council" that's being recognized by the international imperialists, who contain groups of people "who have fought Gaddafi for decades," meaning during Gaddafi's anti-imperialist, revolutionary leadership over Libya, not just during the last 10 years of neo-liberal reforms.


"Other national council members include a U.S.-educated political science professor, a well-known youth leader and a relative of Libya’s former monarch who spent 31 years in prison for allegedly participating in a coup attempt against Gaddafi. The council has also tapped experienced diplomats who defected to represent them in Western and Arab capitals.

Mahmoud Jibril, a U.S.-educated professor and former head of Libya’s National Economic Development Board, is the rebel leadership’s foreign affairs representative and is expected to meet with Clinton in Cairo. A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks and written by the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, described Jibril as “a serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the U.S. perspective.”

So, here we can see quite clearly that prominent members of the "transitional council" are Western-educated professors, in favor of "the U.S. perspective", and relatives of former King Idris and the ousted royal family.


"They envision a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, largely because there was a parliament under King Idriss, whom Gaddafi deposed in a bloodless coup in 1969."

And so, we then see here that the "transitional council" is seeking for a parliamentary govt., all because former King Idris' govt. was parliamentary.


"Sensitive to comments by Gaddafi that they were linked to al-Qaeda and wanted to create an Islamic emirate, rebel officials stressed that while Islam would be the official religion, a post-Gaddafi government would be secular."

Reason I'm quoting this is, although I'm in favor of a secular-govt. anytime, anywhere, I point this out because the vast majority of the rebels are tribal Islamic's. Why would they be in favor of a secular govt.? To me this points out where the true power lies, and it's not with "the people" as a whole, but rather those of the "transitional council".

Though, I will hand it to them on this:


"Still, it’s unlikely that a post-Gaddafi government will support U.S. policies in the Middle East. Members of the national council said they were opposed to U.S. policies in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I would be in favor of such views, but I'm skeptical to how much support these views garner. Remember, the article takes notice at the very beginning that the council "doesn’t speak with a unified voice; day-to-day operations seem disorganized, even precarious." So it's unclear as to who is in favor and who is in opposition to these particular views.

Either way, what I present are clear red alarms needing to be addressed in order to better understand who these rebels really are and where they stand on the political spectrum. And overall, I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

[Obs]

:crying:
ok boy........... You dont know any of my view buddy ol pal

Actually I do since I read your posts in which you express your support for reformist parties and reformist politics. That's kind of how a forum works.

[RATM-Eubie]

Actually I do since I read your posts in which you express your support for reformist parties and reformist politics. That's kind of how a forum works.

Last time I checked Democratic Socialism was considered "revolutionary" here..... Sorry that im not a an authoritarian whatever you are socialist as you come off to be... Im just for human rights, democracy, socialism, freedom, you konw... But if thats reforism to you then whatever. Ill just post on here what i sent some guy asking me if a was a "revisonist". I told him what i believed in, maybe you should just ask me what i believe in instead of going of your ignorant basis. I believe this is a thread about Libya not about me so if you want to you know ask me what i believe in or ask me why i come to these conclusions go right ahead in a private message or something...

[Threetune]

Why should this put them on their "guard"?

Is that a serious question? It is word for word the same hypocrisy that pretends to cherish ‘rights and ‘liberties’ but is only ever a cover for vicious exploitation.

Every imperialist government is now waging economic and political war on its own working class because of the economic crisis. What do you really think they have in store for everyone else on the planet? Capitalist freedom, democracy, yes, plus war and starvation.

[Aspiring Humanist]

weak. really went over your head didn't it?

Weak because I am not fond of rapists...? I'm not saying all of the rebels are rapists...far from it, I admire them greatly. I don't judge the entirety of a group on the actions of one man. What I am saying is that this rapist needs to be punished by the rebel authority.

[The Red Next Door]

Last time I checked Democratic Socialism was considered "revolutionary" here..... Sorry that im not a an authoritarian whatever you are socialist as you come off to be... Im just for human rights, democracy, socialism, freedom, you konw... But if thats reforism to you then whatever. Ill just post on here what i sent some guy asking me if a was a "revisonist". I told him what i believed in, maybe you should just ask me what i believe in instead of going of your ignorant basis. I believe this is a thread about Libya not about me so if you want to you know ask me what i believe in or ask me why i come to these conclusions go right ahead in a private message or something...


The DSA, are really social democrats. they just called themselves democratic socialist, they are a member of the fucking Socialist international.

Mubarak and ben ali parites where in the same international group as the fucking DSA, along with the PRI, the Revolutionary insitute party of mexico, the same party that murder a bunch of students protesting against the system that abuse working people. they were working with the CIA.

You are a reactionary.

Also party of tony blair is also a member of Shit international.

[gorillafuck]

Yeah, because this COMPLETELY justifies the mass executions, lynchings, and imprisonment of African migrants! :rolleyes:I'm pretty skeptical that there have been "mass executions", seeing as I'm not positive that the rebels are capable of rounding up mass amounts of people for execution.

[Robespierre Richard]

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/i-like-where-this-thread-is-going.jpg

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And yet:
:confused:


I see no contradiction. The rebels who did this heinous act which Khad mentions are guilty and should be punished, just like the people who committed the rape in Gaddafi's military. On that level, the events are the same. However, Gaddafi's government itself implicated itself in the crimes by conspiring to hide the woman's crimes (and afterwards slander her on State TV), whereas there's nothing to indicate that level of intrigue and organization on the part of the rebels. Instead, the rebels seem to suffer from no organization, as evidenced by their total lack of military discipline or real law and order.

Edit-also I think the Dem Socialists and the Stalinists should try to keep the tone of the debate just a little more civil (if thats possible). Sectarianism is fun and all, but lets not make it personal.

[khad]

Right, and the prisoner was mysteriously put out of reach, "transferred" if you will, right when HRW was about to conduct a further investigation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not saying there wasn't a coverup, just that it doesn't necessarily implicate all of the rebels, since there seems to be no "central authority" aside from some de facto council in Benghazi. It would be nice to know more about the Rebels, the conditions under which it happened, etc. However, Gaddafi's actual state television was calling the woman a whore.

[khad]

Not saying there wasn't a coverup, just that it doesn't necessarily implicate the rebels in general. However, Gaddafi's actual state television was calling the woman a whore.
However, the rebel command continues to drum up hysteria about African mercenaries, and you know what that leads to.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm pretty skeptical that there have been "mass executions", seeing as I'm not positive that the rebels are capable of rounding up mass amounts of people for execution.

You're forgetting that the African migrants are coming into Libya through Benghazi. That's where they've been known to come into Libya. So it wouldn't surprise me if they were able to capture mass amounts of said African migrants, due to where it's located.