@ TVM; please source this claim on the libyan rebels

[Sasha]

but fact of the matter is that you're supporting a minority group of Libyans

please source the "minority group" claim, all the major citys outside tripoli openly support the uprising, from tripoli we dont know although the fact that journalists are barred from entering the workingclass neighborhoods and the fact that state officials only allowed them to speak with instructed supporters who almost all happen to be state/security personnel or petit-bourgeois makes my highly doubt your claim.


i dont deny that gadaffi has his support, but so did mumbarak, batista and the tsar...

edit: not wanting to make this in a silly numbers game but even if 100% of the tripoli population would support gadaffi only benghazi en misarata combined have already more than half a milion more citizens than tripoli, not to speak about all the other rebellious city's, if you include only al bayda into that sum already more than 2/3 of the urban population live in an area not longer under gadaffi's control, there is no way you can defend your claim that the rebels are an minority group, if so the highly chaotic and untrained rebels would already have been smashed from the inside weeks ago.

[Raubleaux]

If they had that much popular support they would have won by now. You also cannot assume that just because the rebels control a city like Benghazi that everybody there automatically supports them (anymore than you can assume that Gaddafi has 100% support in Tripoli, even though I'd say he pretty clearly has the backing of the majority there). I doubt anyone who supports Gaddafi in Benghazi feels safe enough to take to the streets to say so.

[Sasha]

but in contrast to tripoli that saw both anti-gadaffi and some pro demonstrations early in february regardless of the more than brutal repression of the anti-gadaffi crowds, benghazi, misarata and al bayda saw only huge anti- and zero pro- demonstrations long before the breakdown of the police apperatus.
so while i agree that there are probably some outside tripoli and sirth that support gadaffi and are now (rightly) afraid to let their voices heard i still mantain that all the evidence points to the fact that even during this civilwar the populair support lies with the rebels, wich is why i want TVM to source his claims.
also the fact that there are still substantial amounts of people fleeing from tripoli towards the east but hardly no-one the other way around should be quite an indication.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, according to a report by Stratfor, a pro-imperialist, anti-Gaddafi “global intelligence” company:


“According to the narrative, Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually had substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters had a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Therefore, they proved far stronger collectively than the opposition, even if they were taken aback by the initial opposition successes. To everyone’s surprise, Gadhafi not only didn’t flee, he counterattacked and repulsed his enemies.

[...]

“One of the parts of the narrative is that the tyrant is surviving only by force and that the democratic rising readily routs him. The fact is that the tyrant had a lot of support in this case, the opposition wasn’t particularly democratic, much less organized or cohesive, and it was Gadhafi who routed them.”

Not too long ago, we had been given word that the largest known tribe in Libya – the Warfalla tribe – were siding with Gaddafi, demanding for reconciliation instead of a civil war:


“Some are youths who want things but have been exploited. Do they want to divide the country? No, we will not agree to that. Do they want a constitution? The majority must agree. No one wants to replace Muammar Gaddafi. But the problem is a conspiracy against Libya.”

Then, surprising enough, Al-Jazeera unexpectedly revealed just how much support Col. Gaddafi was attaining from the Libyan people:

vNoNv0kIweE

So, as we can clearly see, Gaddafi not only still attains support among a section of his people, the support has grown to the vast majority of the Libyan people.

[Nolan]

That video is private.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That video is private.

Interesting. I wonder why they made it private. I'll try and search for a similar video then.

[Sasha]

your video is private so i cant watch but i see nowhere in the sources you refer to any basis for your claim that its an minority movement, again, the exact same wording could be used to describe the support of an batista, star nicholas II or *gasp* hitler...
i freely admit that gadaffi has support, yes even great support in groups like the state apperatus, the military and the industrialists. what dictator doesnt? but i fail to see any proof from your side that he has any substantial support in the workingclass. The only reason why he could get away so long with repressing the populair uprisings is because he made sure that there is no libyan midleclass worthy to speak from so also no reason to supress them. But you must be an complete 3th worldist to see that as an positive legacy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You also disregard the fact he's got the support from one of the largest tribes in Libya. Or do they not count in your book?

[Tim Finnegan]

You also disregard the fact he's got the support from one of the largest tribes in Libya. Or do they not count in your book?
Because, as we all know, tribal entities are democratic through and through... :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

TVM-the problem is, there's no sort of real hard, objective proof. A statement from a tribal leader doesn't mean the whole tribe supports Gaddafi, and a pro-Gaddafi protest is naturally going to be a selected sample. Anyway, I don't think Leftists should be taking the statement of tribal leaders without any skepticism, for obvious reasons.

As for the fact that Gaddafi has stayed in power ... that doesn't mean he has popular support, it just means he has sufficient support in certain strategic sectors. Plenty of leaders have ruled without popular support because they control the army and have just enough citizens behind them to stay in power. This is especially true of a police state of the kind which Libya has.

Now, if you had a poll of the Libyan people, or the result of a free and fair referendum, that would be something else, but it's not practically possible due to the strict controls on media and free speech by the Libyan government. Instead, you have some pretty thin evidence. Obviously Gaddafi has some support, and what you have shown clearly proves that, but does he have the support of most of the country? You've definitely not shown that at all.

[bailey_187]

You also disregard the fact he's got the support from one of the largest tribes in Libya. Or do they not count in your book?

lol not this again.

[Palestine]

You also disregard the fact he's got the support from one of the largest tribes in Libya. Or do they not count in your book?

Maybe it counts in the green book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15tribes.html

And for fuck's sake, a country that still relies on tribes?? Gaddafi made sure it's that way, this is the 21st century a civil society is needed in Libya not a tribal one that was fit for ages ago. Gaddafi and his to be removed colleague Ali Abdullah Saleh made sure that tribalism stays, it's for their own power, but these days are over.

[Sasha]

You also disregard the fact he's got the support from one of the largest tribes in Libya. Or do they not count in your book?

but every libyan i speak with says that tribalism is hardly an factor in their everyday lives, yes they know wich tribe they are from but (unless your an tuareg) its not an defining aspect.
before this conflict the only division they cared about was which football team you support. I readily admid that all these people are all from the big citys but so is 80% from the libyan population.
an warfella (who supports the uprising) i know told me that the warfella "leadership" pledging support to gadaffi is as much relevance to him as if the queen of holand pledges support to the dutch goverment would be to me, none what so ever to be short

[Tim Finnegan]

but every libyan i speak with says that tribalism is hardly an factor in their everyday lives, yes they know wich tribe they are from but (unless your an tuareg) its not an defining aspect.
before this conflict the only division they cared about was which football team you support. I readily admid that all these people are all from the big citys but so is 80% from the libyan population.
Aren't the "tribes", so far as they have any real political relevance, pretty must just extended families among the bourgeoisie? For most people, as far as I can tell, their tribal origins are about as meaningful on a day-to-day basis as a modern Scotsman's clan membership- something romantic to bring out at family gatherings, but not much more.

[Raubleaux]

Aren't the "tribes", so far as they have any real political relevance, pretty must just extended families among the bourgeoisie? For most people, as far as I can tell, their tribal origins are about as meaningful on a day-to-day basis as a modern Scotsman's clan membership- something romantic to bring out at family gatherings, but not much more.

This is kind of right although I wouldn't call them bourgeoisie. They are extended families from which the government sometimes picks leaders to serve in public positions in order to placate the desire for tribal representation. Tribal leaders can have their position based on having money or success, but also things like being educated or having technical skill, having religious authority, being a community leader of some sort, etc.

[Jose Gracchus]

Rule through family patronage is not something limited to developing societies. That's just a slur directed by the Western elites upon the feckless brown simpletons. He's a radical liberal only, but I strongly recommend reading sociologist G. William Domhoff's works on the social cohesion of the ruling class in America. There can be no doubt they really are a distinct social group, conscious of their interests, largely discrete from the rest of society, and typically based on family lineages. Yeah it has evolved considerably, but to pretend it is truly objectively sociologically different is ridiculous. Where the West differs is capitalism has eradicated the large kinship social networks for 95% of the population. In the developing world, bourgeois ruling classes must adapt the extant large kinship networks into a pyramid of patronage. This applies to Latin America, as any modern political scientist would tell you. "Tribe" is just a slur.

[No_Leaders]

So why would anyone support one side over the other? This is like the Iranian revolution. We don't need to take sides because whoever wins, WE lose. The workers lose, and capitalism and oppression triumph! Yet i'm sure there's some here who would justify backing the shah since his people "loved" him. Or maybe not since he was a Western backed despot. So i guess everyone would jump ship and side with the equally authoritarian islamic fundamentalists?

My point is i've been seeing in this thread there's a few people who are so very die hard rebel supporter. And even less of are some die hard gaddafi supporter in the name of being anti-imperialist. I just don't see what's really the point of cheerleading one side over the other like it's a spectator sport? How is gaddafi winning bringing us closer to revolution? How is a rebel victory bringing us any closer to crushing capitalism? The fact is it isn't.. This war isn't helping plant the seeds for our vision of the world to grow and grow. No this war isn't helping us in the slightest to dismantle these symbols of corporate greed, and build our new world from the broken pieces. This cheerleading is not helping us put an end to wage slavery, or breaking the chains of the rich. It is simple petty cheerleading.

I can understand people feel like they must make a stand somewhere and for some fight, but this isn't that fight. That fight would have been as pinochet was cleansing the land of communists, anarchists, socialists and any leftist and their families/friends. That fight would have been when Hitler was imprisioning and executing communists, jews, gypsies, etc. and that fight, happens now, everyday against the boss, against being a slave to a 40 hour week, those are the fights we must champion and fight to no end, those are the fights worth taking a side over. This war comes from the burning fire inside each one of our hearts, and as long as we reduce ourselves to cheerleading for dictators vs reactionary rebels, that fire will stay a minuscule flame and never grow into what it should. Our time, and thoughts, and energy is better spent fighting our struggle, workers struggle.

Just my 2 cents, take it as you will. ;)

[Artemis3]

Many people who don't necessarily support Gaddafi won't also support the rebels. But when your home is surrounded by armed men you tend to do what you must to survive.

The rebels are as barbaric and violent as the western media claims Gaddafi is with his own people. Yes, the rebels have the tendency to shoot the head or cut the throat of their prisoners (seen the videos). Now with such imperialist backing, a rebel state will no doubt become another puppet, if only to repay the "debt" for the "aids"...

That aside i see no right for the US or France to decide that Gaddafi must go. Thats for the Libyan people to decide, they could do a trial to him, or let him retire in his house or whatever, it is not the business of any foreign ruler. Clinton is the most immoral person in this world to demand his resign, or Obama or Zarkozy. Only the Libyan people can, but they can also leave him or choose another solution.

The NATO countries are stealing money, by freezing Libya's reserves. It is not theirs, yet they are retaining or even using it without permission of the Libyan people. This is plunder, and says a lot of the validity of the system. The reserve per capita of Libya is HUGE, this is no small loot. IMF said $110 thousand million (US "Billion"). And thats not counting the Oil reserves should they ever "control" the land; or the numerous Libyan investments abroad.

[Luís Henrique]

the exact same wording could be used to describe the support of an batista, star nicholas II or *gasp* hitler...

Hitler's popular support was much, much higher than Gaddafy's.

Luís Henrique

[pranabjyoti]

Hitler's popular support was much, much higher than Gaddafy's.

Luís Henrique
Ya, but at the cost of Zews living in Germany and people of other European countries which Hitler invaded. I want to know how many lives have been taken by Gaddafi in his "concentration camps" and how many countries he had invaded so far. If the resemblance is close then I am ready to accept the analogy.

[Luís Henrique]

Ya, but at the cost of Zews living in Germany and people of other European countries which Hitler invaded. I want to know how many lives have been taken by Gaddafi in his "concentration camps" and how many countries he had invaded so far. If the resemblance is close then I am ready to accept the analogy.

There is no analogy.

Gaddafy isn't planning or exectuting the genocide of a whole ethnic group. He has no extermination camps, and his feeble attempts into territorial expansion (mainly his ill-conceived and ill-fated war in Chad) were minor and unsuccessful.

But, hey, the same applies to Franco, Batista, Somoza, Marcos, Papadopoulos, Salazar, Pinochet, the Brazilian gorillas, etc. None of them were really into genocide, and none of them started actual wars of conquest (well, Salazar did something similar - but he was still not into genocide).

The point however is, "popular support" isn't a valid argument. Worse dictators than Gaddafy (and there were many dictators worse than him) enjoyed larger popular support than he does or ever did.

Luís Henrique