SHOCKING VIDEO: Vicious Street Lynching of Libyan Citizen by Rebels

[khad]

You hear the Rebel Command of London and Paris whine constantly about "mercenaries" from darkest Africa. This is the reality.

BgHBGXEb3W8

[Jose Gracchus]

Jesus Christ. And of course the intervention and resolution is to "prevent violence against civilians". Where's this Libyan's intervention? A Jim Crow style lynching.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

doesn't surprise me at all. the more of this news comes out, the more certain 'leftists' are gonna feel like complete fools.

[Dr Mindbender]

These cowardly thugs are the sort of people the west is ushering to power.

[khad]

Video of another street lynching:

bVukQDXuCSE

What really gets me is that all this video was recorded and documented by the Libyan klansmen themselves.

They're obviously very proud of their handiwork.

[Nolan]

That's not a lynching. That's a beheading.

[RedAnarchist]

That's not a lynching. That's a beheading.

A lynching doesn't necessarily involve hanging, it's a killing committed by a mob.

[Nolan]

My bad.

[timofey]

Horrific. How can anyone support these rebels?

[Raubleaux]

Video of another street lynching:

bVukQDXuCSE

What really gets me is that all this video was recorded and documented by the Libyan klansmen themselves.

They're obviously very proud of their handiwork.

Holy fuck.. this video takes any notion that the lynchings and human rights abuses are being done by a minority and throws it out the window. That is a huge crowd and they're all cheering this filth.

[khad]

Holy fuck.. this video takes any notion that the lynchings and human rights abuses are being done by a minority and throws it out the window. That is a huge crowd and they're all cheering this filth.
As does any filthy liberal denial of the FACT that the rebels are racist.

[DaringMehring]

I've already made my position known, that I support neither side of the Libyan Civil War, and strongly oppose US intervention, but I want to say: if video cameras were around, you could probably have found hundreds of mob-executions by both Reds and Whites during the Russian Civil War. It's a Civil War. If you open your opinion up to being convinced because someone showed you a video of an atrocity, then you'll end up a puppet, whether is the media showing you a vid of a Gaddafi-atrocity or Gaddafi regime showing you a vid of a rebel atrocity.

[Nolan]

I've already made my position known, that I support neither side of the Libyan Civil War, and strongly oppose US intervention, but I want to say: if video cameras were around, you could probably have found hundreds of mob-executions by both Reds and Whites during the Russian Civil War. It's a Civil War. If you open your opinion up to being convinced because someone showed you a video of an atrocity, then you'll end up a puppet, whether is the media showing you a vid of a Gaddafi-atrocity or Gaddafi regime showing you a vid of a rebel atrocity.

I'm afraid I'll have to say you're right.

These videos dont prove that the rebels are all racists or that the rebellion is fundamentally racist. It proves that there are a lot of racists in it, yes. Some rebel soldiers probably capture a black person, and drag them somewhere to kill them. On the way, they pick up racist supporters which eventually grows to crowds of this size. Many, many people are going to be there just for the spectacle. That might be gruesome, but that's how humans are in such situations.

That's how I would imagine these things work.

[Nolan]

And I honestly hope no one thinks the loyalists haven't done similar things.

[khad]

And I honestly hope no one thinks the loyalists haven't done similar things.
You mean stand around by the hundreds photographing their latest atrocities to show all their friends?

So far only one side has taken such pride in such work.


but that's how humans are in such situations.
Speak for yourself.

[Nolan]

You mean stand around by the hundreds photographing their latest atrocities to show all their friends?

So far only one side has taken such pride in such work.

That certainly seems to be the case so far.

In a few years when this is a historical event rather than an ongoing one, we will know for sure.

[Nolan]

Speak for yourself.

I'm sorry mob behavior can be irrational?

[khad]

I'm sorry mob behavior can be irrational?
Sure, it's irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_fro nt_and_back.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_fro nt_and_back.jpghttp://www.reasonpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Lawrence-Beitler-Lynching.jpg

Just a centuries-long case of mass insanity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

And 10 years ago, when 200 blacks were lynched in Libya after a football game dispute - nothing racist at all.

[timofey]

I'm sorry mob behavior can be irrational?

Yeah, especially when egged on by a CIA backed regime talking about "African mercenaries."

That's assuming, of course that there aren't any official representatives of the CIA backed regime in the crowd, which there are probably dozens.

[Nolan]

Sure, it's irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_fro nt_and_back.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_fro nt_and_back.jpghttp://www.reasonpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Lawrence-Beitler-Lynching.jpg

Just a centuries-long case of mass insanity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

What are you trying to say?

[khad]

What are you trying to say?
If I have to spell it out for you, you're even dumber than I expected.

[Nolan]

If I have to spell it out for you, you're even dumber than I expected.

Where did I ever say this was not racism?

Clearly you're on some intellectual plane far above me, so explain.

[khad]

Clearly you're on some intellectual plane far above me, so explain.
Clearly.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2064946#post2064946) but that's how humans are in such situations.

[Nolan]

Clearly.

Yes, and?

I was referring to the spectator part.

[Die Rote Fahne]

How much I do not care anymore.

Shit is happening everywhere.

The USA, NATO, France, Canada, they don't care. The UN, does not care.

[Chimurenga.]

I was referring to the spectator part.

Even so, the spectators are not doing anything about it. They have their cell phones out, capturing these lynchings and not saying a word. They are part of the problem, not the solution because, ultimately, they are siding with racist thugs.

[Nolan]

Even so, the spectators are not doing anything about it. They have their cell phones out, capturing these lynchings and not saying a word. They are part of the problem, not the solution because, ultimately, they are siding with racist thugs.

People in large crowds do not help most of the time. That's psychology 101.

[khad]

They have their cell phones out, capturing these lynchings and not saying a word.
They were saying a lot of things. Cheering and trying to push their way to the front to get a piece of the action. I'd consider them all participants.


People in large crowds do not help most of the time. That's psychology 101.
Psychology 101: Let's all smile for the camera

http://yesteryearsnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lynching-gs100th2.jpg

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm pretty sure Nolan and Khad are saying the same exact thing, but Khad is too much of a stuck-up fuck to realize it.

[Nolan]

They were saying a lot of things. Cheering and trying to push their way to the front to get a piece of the action. I'd consider them all participants.

The people you see right there, it seems so. But its not surprising that they want a better look or that the most fervent killers will be in the front.

[Togglebog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UELBzi8njfY

[Raubleaux]

I said this with some reservation about a month ago, but with renewed confidence now: Victory to Gaddafi! The soldiers marching under the green flag are now an army of liberation.

They need to strike hard, and fast. Move while the imperialist powers argue over strategy. Once Benghazi has been liberated from the rebels, ordinary people will begin to return to the city and try to resume their normal lives that this violent treachery has robbed them of.

You will see sizable numbers of people emerge in Benghazi who were not on board with the rebellion but were forced to lay low. At that point, the imperialists will have to decide: allow Gaddafi to stay in power, or launch a ground war?

[The Vegan Marxist]

People in large crowds do not help most of the time. That's psychology 101.

As I am a college student under a Psychology major, I seriously doubt you know a single thing about the field of psychology. What you see in the video is a collective mindset of "shock and awe" over the lynching of these innocent African migrants. Each individual showing praise and interest is presently shown as they pack up to the front like a bunch of wild dogs, wanting to get as close as they can. If they were to stay in place and not say a word, maybe start hearing some crying, you may have a point. But this is hardly what's taking place.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Though, I hope Khad doesn't take this Nolan character seriously. Nolan has been on a campaign of claiming that those who you see in pictures and video of thousands of Libyans supporting Gaddafi are actually paid off cops. :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

As I am a college student under a Psychology major, I seriously doubt you know a single thing about the field of psychology. What you see in the video is a collective mindset of "shock and awe" over the lynching of these innocent African migrants. Each individual showing praise and interest is presently shown as they pack up to the front like a bunch of wild dogs, wanting to get as close as they can. If they were to stay in place and not say a word, maybe start hearing some crying, you may have a point. But this is hardly what's taking place.

Yeah and I'm Colonel Gaddafi.

We don't see the larger crowd in the second video at all. Most people we see are looking around or filming/taking pictures. That's an entirely expected response. A few are waving their arms in the air and chanting, and evidently we hear many more behind us. When we get closer, then it gets louder.

In peacetime in smaller groups, the bystander effect is no different.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19586738/

And this isn't in a wartime setting with racist vigilantes and fundies whipped into a frenzy about mercenaries/Gaddafi loyalists.

[Nolan]

Though, I hope Khad doesn't take this Nolan character seriously. Nolan has been on a campaign of claiming that those who you see in pictures and video of thousands of Libyans supporting Gaddafi are actually paid off cops. :rolleyes:

I claimed that about that picture you posted, which, by the way, is a very close shot, all men, with some obvious military personnel.

It's all eerily similar to Mubarak's "supporters." But hey, I guess that's just me. :rolleyes:

[Threetune]

Come on you ‘left’ liberal democrats, tell us you and your mates have the best judicial system.

EDIT:
All gone quiet over there !

[Threetune]

What are you trying to say?

Just what are you trying not to understand about racist imperialism?

[Kenco Smooth]

I said this with some reservation about a month ago, but with renewed confidence now: Victory to Gaddafi! The soldiers marching under the green flag are now an army of liberation.

They need to strike hard, and fast. Move while the imperialist powers argue over strategy. Once Benghazi has been liberated from the rebels, ordinary people will begin to return to the city and try to resume their normal lives that this violent treachery has robbed them of.

You will see sizable numbers of people emerge in Benghazi who were not on board with the rebellion but were forced to lay low. At that point, the imperialists will have to decide: allow Gaddafi to stay in power, or launch a ground war?

Oh for goodness sake what is with the blind side-taking and subsequent juvenile cheer leading from so many on this forum? Honestly, you're comfortable laying such thick praise on the regime which has not only been systematic and ruthless in it's assault on it's political opponents and those associated with them but one which has also made large concessions to western powers in the last decade and has hardly shown any worry in trying to silence said opposition through means of media influence we would typically associate with Western democracies?

Likewise the blind praise of the glorious peoples revolution that was being bandied about was quickly shown to be misplaced as the nature of the protests evolved into a civil war between largely hierarchical and anti-worker bodies.

Unless someone wants to claim that Gaddafi's forces are protecting a genuine workers state, or that it is genuinely progressing towards it ,(no doubt some of you will pop out the woodwork) then why should we be so keen on picking a side and then cheering them on from the sidelines as you would a sports team despite the fact both sides are by the day growing further and further from any semblance of a genuine radical left position?

Funny how fast people (rightfully so) call the SPD out on it's capitulation to imperialism in 1914 and yet fail to see they do the exact same thing when jumping on the liberal/stalinist bandwagons here.

[No_Leaders]

Yep. I don't get why people are taking sides and cheerleading the events. Isn't it safe by now to say that BOTH sides are on the wrong? While i think it's good that people around the arab world are pissed off and tired of their leaders using fear and oppression and ruling with an iron fist. I think that it doesn't necessarily say that the rebels in the case of libya are the "good guys" after all both sides seem to be doing equally heinous actions. I think it's silly though for people who find out "oh guess what these rebels aren't these great revolutionaries and are committing brutal crimes" jump ship to supporting Gaddafi. Or some people who only support Gaddafi because the rebels are being aided by imperialists. One shouldn't feel so inclined in having to take sides, we don't have to, this isn't a socialist revolution by any means. I think Libyans should be able to have the right to self determination, but i know damn well it isn't gonna turn into a workers revolution, if anything it will end up with another bourgeoisie state, or a client state for the west, or an islamic fundamentalist state. Whoever wins we (the workers) lose. Just my 2 cents ;)

[A Revolutionary Tool]

DaringMehring said it best. I mean really are we going to start choosing sides based on some of the horrible ways they kill people? Then the people who talk about atrocities should disown the Bolsheviks, Maoist groups, etc. I'm not going to choose sides in the conflict and neither should any of you, people supporting Gaddafi must conveniently forget about the people who say they were raped by people in the military, the massacres of protesters, and shit like that.

What's the justification for supporting Gaddafi? He is trying to crush a rebel movement that has racists in it? Rebels who had shot at peaceful protesters? What makes him so much better if his military is raping women and shooting at unarmed civilians? Or is it this stupid position that you must support everybody that the U.S. doesn't like/tries to take out. Which is why some of you support Ahmadinejad and the Taliban...:cursing:

[Raubleaux]

There are (basically) two sides in this conflict. One of them is inevitably going to achieve some measure of victory. Agreed? Well, the next question is this: what outcome will result in objectively better results for Libyan workers? I believe a defeat of the rebellion will be better for Libyan workers than a victory for the rebellion. It is that simple.

[Threetune]

There are (basically) two sides in this conflict. One of them is inevitably going to achieve some measure of victory. Agreed? Well, the next question is this: what outcome will result in objectively better results for Libyan workers? I believe a defeat of the rebellion will be better for Libyan workers than a victory for the rebellion. It is that simple.

You are right and for the working class will have to continue the national liberation struggle against imperialism, now so badly lead by the local national bourgeois, and establish a revolutionary workers dictatorship if they're to have any hope of a peaceful democratic future for themselves.

[IndependentCitizen]

It's fucking horrific, no doubt. But surely it would be ridiculous to believe this is a large majority of the rebels? For all we know, there could be many separate groups in the uprising, each with a different agenda.


So distressing though.

[Luís Henrique]

There are (basically) two sides in this conflict. One of them is inevitably going to achieve some measure of victory. Agreed? Well, the next question is this: what outcome will result in objectively better results for Libyan workers? I believe a defeat of the rebellion will be better for Libyan workers than a victory for the rebellion. It is that simple.

Well, why would you believe that the defeat of the rebellion - which means the victory of a dictatorship that has systematically crushed any possibility of independent organisation of the working class - is going to be better? How is a ban on socialist parties and independent unions better for the Libyan working class?

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

The reason why I find this dubious is that I haven't heard the Qadhafi choir talk about it.

Qadhafi and especially Saif al-Islam are not stupid people. The old man himself might be crazy, but he has been more skilled in his propaganda campaign than Saddam. So why has he missed this opportunity?

[Threetune]

Well, why would you believe that the defeat of the rebellion - which means the victory of a dictatorship that has systematically crushed any possibility of independent organisation of the working class - is going to be better? How is a ban on socialist parties and independent unions better for the Libyan working class?

Luís Henrique

Luis - When Lenin hampered the advance of the mutinous Kornilov’s mach on St Petersburg, he wasn’t ‘supporting’ the Kerensky government .

EDIT:. By the way this was after Kerensky had outlawed the Bolsheviks, jailed Trotsky and sent Lenin into hiding.

[khad]

The reason why I find this dubious is that I haven't heard the Qadhafi choir talk about it.

Qadhafi and especially Saif al-Islam are not stupid people. The old man himself might be crazy, but he has been more skilled in his propaganda campaign than Saddam. So why has he missed this opportunity?
Maybe because he doesn't spend his life on the internet scouring websites for rebel snuff videos?

Yes, I know that an offline life is a hard thing to grasp for most people here.

[El Chuncho]

I do not support Gaddaffi, especially with his wishes to be an Islamic emperor, however, I support his team in this Civil War as the ''rebels'' are Islamic (seemingly Wahhabi) extremists supported by the US. It is disgusting that the US can support these ''rebels'' yet actively aids fascist tyrannies in Latin America!

[gorillafuck]

I do not support Gaddaffi, especially with his wishes to be an Islamic emperorwait, what?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I do not support Gaddaffi, especially with his wishes to be an Islamic emperor

Despite the fact that Gaddafi's leadership over Libya had very little to do with Islam, right? Libya didn't go from the poorest country to one with the highest standard of living in the African region because they have an Islamic empire (which they don't!).

[El Chuncho]

wait, what?

Come on, the guy is not true to revolutionary ideals. He bestowed himself with the title ''King of Kings'', once. His coup was the usual military one, and not one in the hands of the workers and peasants. The army have never been great leaders and champions of the workers, just look at Batista in Cuba, Diaz in Mexico and Franco in Spain.

That said, I support his side in the civil war only because the ''rebels'' are rightist scum. I hope that when they are defeated, the people (the workers and the peasants) will take over.

[El Chuncho]

Despite the fact that Gaddafi's leadership over Libya had very little to do with Islam, right? Libya didn't go from the poorest country to one with the highest standard of living in the African region because they have an Islamic empire (which they don't!).

Yeah, I typed to fast, I meant ''Arab''. Even so, as a Marxist, I oppose a military dictatorship led by the rich elite and not the workers. I do not trust Gaddafi and I never have. I do not think he works for the peasants and workers.

EDIT: Nice quote in the other thread active on this issue, Vegan Marxist. Couldn't have said it better myself. People who support these so called ''rebels'' are naive indeed.

[Luís Henrique]

Luis - When Lenin hampered the advance of the mutinous Kornilov’s mach on St Petersburg, he wasn’t ‘supporting’ the Kerensky government .

No. He was actually defending the best option for the Russian working class. Kornilov would have unleashed total repression against the working class; Kerensky couldn't do that, at least not as easily, because part of Kerensky's constituency was working class.

Gaddafy looks much more like Kornilov than Kerensky, if this is the comparison you want.

But, again. It is impossible to defeat imperialism, or even just the "intervention", in the Libyan battleground. Cheerleading for Gaddafy is therefore useless, as it can only lead to defeat. If you really want to defeat the intervention, or imperialism at large, Gaddafy is not relevant: you have to pitch the struggle at home, not at Libya, and rely in a differenct historical actor - not Gaddafy's army, tribes, Committees, police, henchmen, etc., but in the American, British, French, working class.

That was how Lenin defeated Czarism.

With the Russian working class.

Not with Kaiser Willhelm's army, courts, police, henchmen.

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

No. He was actually defending the best option for the Russian working class. Kornilov would have unleashed total repression against the working class; Kerensky couldn't do that, at least not as easily, because part of Kerensky's constituency was working class.

Gaddafy looks much more like Kornilov than Kerensky, if this is the comparison you want.

But, again. It is impossible to defeat imperialism, or even just the "intervention", in the Libyan battleground. Cheerleading for Gaddafy is therefore useless, as it can only lead to defeat. If you really want to defeat the intervention, or imperialism at large, Gaddafy is not relevant: you have to pitch the struggle at home, not at Libya, and rely in a differenct historical actor - not Gaddafy's army, tribes, Committees, police, henchmen, etc., but in the American, British, French, working class.

That was how Lenin defeated Czarism.

With the Russian working class.

Not with Kaiser Willhelm's army, courts, police, henchmen.

Luís Henrique

Of course Lenin he was “defending the Russian working class” – against its most dangerous enemy at that point. But Kerensky had already launched repression against the Bolsheviks jailing Trotsky and forcing Lenin to run for the border. Do you think he would have treated the unions and soviets any better than Kornilov if he got the chance and don’t you think Lenin knew that, but correctly, changed his campaign against the reactionary Kerensky to defeat him later:

“At the moment we must campaign not so much directly against Kerensky, as indirectly against him, namely, by demanding a more and more active, truly revolutionary war against Kornilov.” Lenin To the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

Lenin wasn’t “cheerleading” for Kerensky.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course Lenin he was “defending the Russian working class” – against its most dangerous enemy at that point.

And how did he define who the most dangerous enemy was?


But Kerensky had already launched repression against the Bolsheviks jailing Trotsky and forcing Lenin to run for the border. Do you think he would have treated the unions and soviets any better than Kornilov if he got the chance

I don't think he could get the chance. The chance could only come from a Kornilov-like coup, but then it would be a chance for Kornilov (or other similar adventurer) not a chance for Kerensky. Kerensky could try, of course, but he would be destroying his own base of power - which means he would need to throw himself into the arms of a different base of power. Succeeding in this isn't quite easy, you know.


and don’t you think Lenin knew that, but correctly, changed his campaign against the reactionary Kerensky to defeat him later:

Well, of course. That's the point. But he turned against Kornilov to defeat Kerensky later. He didn't turn against Kerensky to defeat Kornilov later. Why? Or do you think his choice was random?


At the moment we must campaign not so much directly against Kerensky, as indirectly against him, namely, by demanding a more and more active, truly revolutionary war against Kornilov.

Exactly. But what does that have to do with Libya? Are you suggesting that the rebels should demand that Gaddafy wages a "more active, truly revolutionary war" against the intervention?

Under Kerensky, the Bolsheviks retained the capability of independent action, and, more to the point, so did the working class. Kerensky was in no position to suppress unions. There is not the case of Gaddafy, who already has suppressed anything vaguely reminiscent of working class indepdence. Unions are directly subjected to the State, working class organisations are forbidden, strikes are outlawed, people who try to organise workers are arrested, tortured, killed. There is absolutely no similrity between the regimes of Gaddafy - a bonapartist dictatorship that serves the bourgeoisie by directly suppressing any working class struggle - and Kerensky - a failed attempt on bourgeois democracy.

Now pay attention to Lenin:


demanding a more and more active, truly revolutionary war against Kornilovnot, mind it, demanding a more and more active, truly revolutionary war against the imperialist German invasion!


Lenin wasn’t “cheerleading” for Kerensky.Evidently not. He was taking adequate steps for the destruction of Kerensky's regime. Which included smashing Kornilov's coup first - not jeering for the Kaiser's army to destroy Kerensky.

Perhaps Lenin's discussion is totally irrelevant here - he was talking from the point of view of the working class opposition to one of the great powers involved in an all-out imperialist war, while we are discussing from the point of view of either the disorganised working class of a third-world country whose military is being bombed by imperialist powers, or the working class of imperialist countries that are bombing the military of a third-worl country.

But if Lenin's discussion is relevant here, it points to a completely different analogy than you are trying. Kornilov is more like Gaddafy than like the Lybian opposition, Kerensky is more like the Libyan rebels than like Gaddafy, Russia wasn't comparable to Libya, and anyway Lenin never proposed a united front with the Czar, Kerensky, or Kornilov against German imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

And how did he define who the most dangerous enemy was?



I don't think he could get th[COLOR=black]e chance. The chance could only come from a Kornilov-like coup, but then it would be a chance for Kornilov (or other similar adventurer) not a chance for Kerensky. Kerensky could try, of course, but he would be destroying his own base of power - which means he would need to throw himself into the arms of a different base of power. Succeeding in this isn't quite easy, you know.



[FONT=Verdana]Well, of course. That's the point. But he turned against Kornilov to defeat Kerensky later. He didn't turn against Kerensky to defeat Kornilov later. Why? Or do you think his choice was random?



Exactly. But what does that have to do with Libya? Are you suggesting that the rebels should demand that Gaddafy wages a "more active, truly revolutionary war" against the intervention?

Under Kerensky, the Bolsheviks retained the capability of independent action, and, more to the point, so did the working class. Kerensky was in no position to suppress unions. There is not the case of Gaddafy, who already has suppressed anything vaguely reminiscent of working class indepdence. Unions are directly subjected to the State, working class organisations are forbidden, strikes are outlawed, people who try to organise workers are arrested, tortured, killed. There is absolutely no similrity between the regimes of Gaddafy - a bonapartist dictatorship that serves the bourgeoisie by directly suppressing any working class struggle - and Kerensky - a failed attempt on bourgeois democracy.

Now pay attention to Lenin:

not, mind it, demanding a more and more active, truly revolutionary war against the imperialist German invasion!

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Evidently not. He was taking adequate steps for the destruction of Kerensky's regime. Which included smashing Kornilov's coup first - not jeering for the Kaiser's army to destroy Kerensky.

Perhaps Lenin's discussion is totally irrelevant here - he was talking from the point of view of the working class opposition to one of the great powers involved in an all-out imperialist war, while we are discussing from the point of view of either the disorganised working class of a third-world country whose military is being bombed by imperialist powers, or the working class of imperialist countries that are bombing the military of a third-worl country.

But if Lenin's discussion is relevant here, it points to a completely different analogy than you are trying. Kornilov is more like Gaddafy than like the Lybian opposition, Kerensky is more like the Libyan rebels than like Gaddafy, Russia wasn't comparable to Libya, and anyway Lenin never proposed a united front with the Czar, Kerensky, or Kornilov against German imperialism.

Luís Henrique

OK, I think you are a reactionar bullshitter and time waster.

I will watch your support for the pro-imperialist racist scum with interest.

good night

[Luís Henrique]

OK, I think you are a reactionar bullshitter and time waster.

Yes, I noticed. You have no more arguments, so you resort to name calling.


I will watch your support for the pro-imperialist racist scum with interest.

In this you are certain on the advantage. I can't say that your support for this second rate anti-worker dictator is in any way even close to interesting.

Luís Henrique

[timofey]

Well, why would you believe that the defeat of the rebellion - which means the victory of a dictatorship that has systematically crushed any possibility of independent organisation of the working class - is going to be better? How is a ban on socialist parties and independent unions better for the Libyan working class?

What a bizarre thing to say. I mean, pretty much the first thing that happens after a successful socialist revolution is that all the phony socialist parties are banned outright.

I mean, would you complain that the parties of the Menshevics and Socialist Revolutionaries were banned by Lenin? Were they "independent organizations of the working class"?

Was the Tambov Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion) justified?

In fact, banning trash like that is a testament to Gaddafi. If the revolution were ever to happen in a America, lots of "revolutionary" parties would need to be made illegal and their members persecuted, arrested, and even executed.

And as far as I'm aware anyway, there never was any organized communist forces in Libya prior to 1969, so who exactly did Gaddafi ban anyway?