False pretense for war in Libya?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Surprisingly, this is a great article by the Boston Globe on the b.s. lies made against Gaddafi to justify western imperialism!

False pretense for war in Libya?
By Alan J. Kuperman
April 14, 2011

Evidence is now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.

But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.

On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’

It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.

The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.

Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.

In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/

[Threetune]

Surprisingly, this is a great article by the Boston Globe on the b.s. lies made against Gaddafi to justify western imperialism!


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/

What is not suppressing for this piece in a bourgeois rag is that it did not dig deeper into the real economic crisis reasons for the ‘intervention’. But you are right; it is surprising that they should start this line of criticism so soon after the start of this particular war. It’s normal for this kind of exposure to come much later after the worst of the bloodletting is over and they are feeling safe. To me this looks like nervousness. Very interesting. Thanks

[CynicalIdealist]

This casts suspicion on who the aggressor really was in the first place. I maintain my non-support for Gaddafi (while not supporting the rebels either), but still, very interesting. I also continue to sympathize with the rebels who have genuine grievances, like the 20% unemployed in Libya, but given the lack of working class movement here a rebel victory would ultimately probably not be a very good thing.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^Did you just contradict yourself here, or are you ultimately supporting for Libya to take steps backwards instead of frontwards? Just wondering.

[Raubleaux]

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

How easily you are duped, TVM. Clearly, Gaddafi is targeting his rockets and missiles specifically at men precisely to fool people such as yourself into making this type of analysis. He is using gender-seeking missiles. It is all part of his his elaborate propaganda effort; you are blind if you don't see this.


But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing.

Um, I saw a picture of a hospital with several windows blown out. If that isn't proof of genocide I don't know what will convince you.

[psgchisolm]

Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
Lol you sound like someone defending american intervention in afghanistan.


But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.read above statement


Um, I saw a picture of a hospital with several windows blown out. If that isn't proof of genocide I don't know what will convince you.It was "necessary" collateral damage:rolleyes:. Because random rockets in a city with civilians may have violated strict laws of war.

Ahhh double standards. Capitalism still stays in Libya, meh the workers lose regardless. But I guess that lesser of the two evils thing just doesn't count in anti-imperialism.

[#FF0000]

Ahhh double standards. Capitalism still stays in Libya, meh the workers lose regardless. But I guess that lesser of the two evils thing just doesn't count in anti-imperialism.

For what it's worth, the "lesser of two evils" in almost any situation is whoever is shooting at the Americans.

[Burn A Flag]

I just can't get over how no one has said anything even though the president and regime keep straight up lying.... And this hypocritical filth about protecting civilians... There was a massacre in US supported Yemen which killed 52 unarmed civilians the day after they decided to bomb Libya.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Lol you sound like someone defending american intervention in afghanistan.

read above statement
It was "necessary" collateral damage:rolleyes:. Because random rockets in a city with civilians may have violated strict laws of war.

If you don't think that civilian deaths in war, whether it be foreign wars or civil wars, are inevitable, then you're seriously fucking ignorant.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Seriously though, this was already admitted by the imperialists themselves! The mainstream media just never aired it and of course it was kept from being heard.

For example, it was revealed through the Western think-tank "international intelligence" International Institute for Strategic Studies, through an hour long military briefing, that:


“When the globalist policy wonks speak frankly, outside the short attention span of the general public, they talk of Qaddafi’s professional forces taking special care to avoid civilian casualties knowing full well it will fuel calls for Western intervention.”

t5AEEbuV8Hg

Then let's not forget when both the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, stating there being no valid evidence to Gaddafi air-striking innocent civilians:


“Q: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

“SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

“ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4777

[psgchisolm]

For what it's worth, the "lesser of two evils" in almost any situation is whoever is shooting at the Americans.Regardless, you are supporting capitalists whether the rebels or gaddafi wins. Even if gaddafi wins, the country will be under economic sanctions like hell since NATO got involved so the workers lose there. Rebels win, another puppet state. Workers lose regardless so I voice support for no one.


If you don't think that civilian deaths in war, whether it be foreign wars or civil wars, are inevitable, then you're seriously fucking ignorant.I obviously know that civilians die in war regardless of who is fighting where. But rocket attacks, artillery, and heavy weapons against cities, with civilians is where the line is drawn. You can't rocket a city and expect to not hit civilians. You can't do with with sophisticated rockets and missles with guided systems.

p.s. I had the hardest time typing this since im drunk. Ty google crome for spell check.

[CynicalIdealist]

^Did you just contradict yourself here, or are you ultimately supporting for Libya to take steps backwards instead of frontwards? Just wondering.

I don't understand this question at all. I specifically said that I don't support the current rebels, given their leadership and their backers. Odds are that Gaddafi would have a slightly more progressive economic policy than a Western-backed government, but the latter would entail more aid from the U.S. Seriously, I don't have to pick between two capitalist fucks.

Since neither side represents the Libyan masses, workers, what have you, I'm pretty detached from the outcome of this civil war. I know that you feel otherwise as a stalwart "anti-imperialist," but I don't think it's worth cheering for either side here. That probably doesn't fit into your narrow worldview, so I apologize for confusing you so much.

Gaddafi has held onto power illegitimately without elections as a tyrant (by killing communists and Palestinians for that matter), whereas the current rebellion has mostly been led by former members of the Gaddafi regime and the West. Both sides are completely farcical. Tell me why I should care other than BEATING AMERICA.

Oh, and Libya having the highest life expectancy in Africa due to slight welfare statism from Gaddafi and his oil wealth. So Gaddafi is a liberal. You seriously want us revleftists to lower our standards and support a liberal like him, one who kills communists and Palestinians?

I await your response.

[pranabjyoti]

Regardless, you are supporting capitalists whether the rebels or gaddafi wins. Even if gaddafi wins, the country will be under economic sanctions like hell since NATO got involved so the workers lose there. Rebels win, another puppet state. Workers lose regardless so I voice support for no one.
Well, I will support the first scenario, because in that case the workers can retain some honor. In the second case, there wouldn't be any honor for the workers and that would be much more devastating. At least the win of Gaddafi against NATO forces can prove that the mighty NATO can also be defeated and that can start some chain reaction of revolts in the workers and that would certainly bring further progress.
In today's world, US leaded imperialism the first and foremost danger and any capitalist or other kind is better than that.

[Sasha]

how can the "anti-imp" crowd so willfully ignore what gaddaffi in all likelyhood will do if he wins.
he will do what he each and every time did if there was an uprising against his rule; kill masses of people in retaliation.
The bare facts are that this whole mess started when he violently put down the egypt/tunesia style mass-demonstrations, he gave the imperialists the pretext they needed when he started shelling city's and deploying snipers and in the very unlikely situation he will remain in controll he will probably kill many people in retaliation.
the fact that the imperialist saw an opportunity to jump in this mess to get a bigger slice of the pie doesnt make Gaddaffi suddenly the good guy.
my alliance lies firmly with the proletariat, and they will suffer more under gaddaffi (who in the end always has and will be just as much of an imperialist lapdog as the TNC but an rabid, blood-lusting lapdog) than if he falls

[Cencus]

The case for intervention was given a massive boost by the sight of one of Gaddaffi's sons ranting on television that there would be a massacre when the rebellion was put down. Upon seeing that footage my reaction was "fucking hell it's gonna be a massacre" and "oh well looks like we are gonna be sending the troops in".

When folks in power promise massacres what do they expect? Western armies have killed huge numbers of folks in interventions but their governments have at least had the common sense not to go on television threatening to slaughter anyone who opposes them. The red rag was waved and the west charged in.

The west has always hated Gaddaffi and his idiot son gave them moral justification (to a large chunk of the population) to try n get rid of him.

[Thirsty Crow]

For what it's worth, the "lesser of two evils" in almost any situation is whoever is shooting at the Americans.
Nah, this is a simplification so detrimental so as to mistify the real content of the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
From a communist position, the general picture is the following: the lesser of two evils is the one which enables workers' forminf their own unions and their own independent political organizations (something which was completely alien to the ruling class of Libya grouped around Gaddafi). That's something the "anti-imperialist" crowd (or rather: "anti-developed-states" crowd) should consider.



In today's world, US leaded imperialism the first and foremost danger and any capitalist or other kind is better than that.
That's right, rally workers behind a client of a different faction of the imperialist bourgeoisie (the better one, d'oh) and send them forward as cannon fodder! (since, maybe then the government will honor the bravery of the working class and allow them, to some extent, to organize into unions...just maybe)

You're full of horseshit.

EDIT: oh boy, I missed the part where you claim that workers will "retain honor" under the rule of a class which formally bans independent unionizing and independent workers' political organizations. This is just...precious.

[The Vegan Marxist]

how can the "anti-imp" crowd so willfully ignore what gaddaffi in all likelyhood will do if he wins.
he will do what he each and every time did if there was an uprising against his rule; kill masses of people in retaliation.


And you seriously think the rebels will not do this as well? Remember what they're already doing in Benghazi! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html)

[Sasha]

the reports are at best conflicting but by my estimate as an worker your a lot better of in liberated area's than those under gadaffi:
volunteer work in the liberated area's:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=92438
gadaffi troops executing captured rebels: http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=240917
setting up independent news stations in benghazi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092838
atmosphere in tripoli: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13011465
life for kids in bengazi: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2011/04/14/benghazis-kids-learn-emergency-first-aid/
on the underground resitance in tripoli: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-tripoli-clandestine-resistance-takes-peaceful-and-violent-forms/2011/04/14/AFnfB2fD_story.html
report from the workingclass neigboorhood of tripoli: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13087062
what happend to the women raped by gadaffis men: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZF8TjEUhhXuFmgNvxUbT2rib2XQ?docId=cfd4b3a17 84a45b5bde4a87f82616ad1

etc etc etc.
you on the other hand seem to have about two articles which you repost ad nausuem....

[A Revolutionary Tool]

And you seriously think the rebels will not do this as well? Remember what they're already doing in Benghazi! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html)
Oh dear they're setting up roadblocks in Benghazi? They caught somebody and interrogated them, then found that they were carrying around an AK-47 on them? They killed some Qaddafi loyalists? Would you have ever supported the Bolsheviks if you heard about all the shit that they did?

The sense I get from this line of argument against the rebels is "it's okay if us communists are brutal because we're fighting a righteous cause, but if those rebels who are fighting against Qaddafi do it they're bad because they're not fighting for the right cause".

[Threetune]

This casts suspicion on who the aggressor really was in the first place. I maintain my non-support for Gaddafi (while not supporting the rebels either), but still, very interesting. I also continue to sympathize with the rebels who have genuine grievances, like the 20% unemployed in Libya, but given the lack of working class movement here a rebel victory would ultimately probably not be a very good thing.

Thank you Mother Teresa

[psgchisolm]

Well, I will support the first scenario, because in that case the workers can retain some honor. In the second case, there wouldn't be any honor for the workers and that would be much more devastating. At least the win of Gaddafi against NATO forces can prove that the mighty NATO can also be defeated and that can start some chain reaction of revolts in the workers and that would certainly bring further progress.
In today's world, US leaded imperialism the first and foremost danger and any capitalist or other kind is better than that.Bullshit. The only person who retains any honor is gaddafi. Then the workers will suffer because THEY WILL BE SANCTIONED TO HELL AND BACK. And no, no form of capitalism is better than another as there are people who will still be oppressed. So stop supporting capitalists and start supporting the workers. (btw Gaddafi isn't a worker)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Bullshit. The only person who retains any honor is gaddafi. Then the workers will suffer because THEY WILL BE SANCTIONED TO HELL AND BACK. And no, no form of capitalism is better than another as there are people who will still be oppressed. So stop supporting capitalists and start supporting the workers. (btw Gaddafi isn't a worker)

And if the workers support Gaddafi? What then? You going to oppose them too? :rolleyes:

[Threetune]

Oh dear they're setting up roadblocks in Benghazi? They caught somebody and interrogated them, then found that they were carrying around an AK-47 on them? They killed some Qaddafi loyalists? Would you have ever supported the Bolsheviks if you heard about all the shit that they did? Yes


The sense I get from this line of argument against the rebels is "it's okay if us communists are brutal because we're fighting a righteous cause, but if those rebels who are fighting against Qaddafi do it they're bad because they're not fighting for the right cause".

Spot on

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes
Spot on
I say! No need for those workers to form their own fighting economic organizations (unions, in other words), and god forbid they came up with the idea of organizing their own political organizations!

You're a fucking disgrace.

[Threetune]

The class struggle lines are being drawn again in the national and international sands because of the disastrous economic crisis. And all the ‘academic’ bullshit on the planet is not going to stop that.
We, the worker workers who want an end to this anarchic chaotic capitalist nonsense, are now politically literate enough to be able to understand and tell you middle class academic types that you are welcome in the struggle for proletarian dictatorship.
We, not so well educated are growing in political confidence because you are entirely lacking in confidence.
Wake up!

[psgchisolm]

And if the workers support Gaddafi? What then? You going to oppose them too? :rolleyes:Again I support the workers, not gaddafi. The workers can support whomever they want. The country still isn't socialist so in the end the workers still lose.

[Threetune]

I say! No need for those workers to form their own fighting economic organizations (unions, in other words), and god forbid they came up with the idea of organizing their own political organizations!

You're a fucking disgrace.

We, the working classes are going to have power, real power out of this world wide revolution, because the middleclass are incapable of fighting.

[Threetune]

You're a fucking disgrace.

A "fucking disgrace" to what exactly?

[CynicalIdealist]

*sigh*

This is not, I repeat, NOT a battle between Gaddafi's glorious worker militias and the evil ruling classes of Benghazi. The main divide in this conflict is between East and West, Benghazi and Tripoli. People in the East are more likely to support the rebels, whereas people in the West are more likely to support Gaddafi. At least, this is intuitively how I've come to understand the partisan divide.

But if Gaddafi were so popular then he would surely allow free elections. Even Fidel Castro allows people to elect the members of the Communist Party that they choose to elect. There is no modicum of democracy--both de jure and at the level of the working class--in Libya.

Slight welfare (moving in neo-liberal direction as evidenced by 20% unemployment) tyrant capitalist vs. imperialist rebel capitalists who are likely soon to be tyrants. I really, really don't give much of a fuck. However, as Americans (most of us, anyway) we should do everything in our power to get the U.S. out of Libya as opposed to engaging in worthless speculation.

[Threetune]

Why do you restrict yourselves to a pacifist ‘stop the war’ posture when it is defeat of the imperialist cause that is most desirable.

[robbo203]

Why do you restrict yourselves to a pacifist ‘stop the war’ posture when it is defeat of the imperialist cause that is most desirable.

And there I was thinking that what really needs defeating is capitalism. This nicely demonstrates why the so called "anti-imperialist" posture is fundamentally a pro-capitalist one. It requires us to support some capitalist states as against others on the pretext that the former is allegedly the lesser of two evils. Its not rocket science to figure out how this must necessarily close off forever any prospect of organising to overthrow capitalism itself.

[Sasha]

And if the workers support Gaddafi? What then? You going to oppose them too? :rolleyes:

Yes, I would still oppose gadaffis rule but no, I would respect the will of its people. I wouldn't support an overthrow that goes against that as in contrast to you we are not in the business of supporting tyrannical junta coups.
But since you still can't show me any, substantiated or not, proof that gadaffi enjoys the popular support, no not even any proletarian support at all, I will happily continue to voice my support for the uprising.
You have been for example awfully quit in the thread where I called you out to source your gadaffi has more support than the uprising claims (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tvm-please-source-t152528/index.html?t=152528) and refuse to counter my arguments.

[Threetune]

And there I was thinking that what really needs defeating is capitalism. This nicely demonstrates why the so called "anti-imperialist" posture is fundamentally a pro-capitalist one. It requires us to support some capitalist states as against others on the pretext that the former is allegedly the lesser of two evils. Its not rocket science to figure out how this must necessarily close off forever any prospect of organising to overthrow capitalism itself.

Telling lies in order to avoid calling for the defeat of your own ruling capitalist class’s imperial war, will only make you look even more liberal than you already do.

[Robespierre Richard]

People in this thread remind me of this eXile article.


41. Humanitarian Wars/Lying Refugees

The Sham:You were morally outraged about the Bosnian War in a very Orwell-affected way. After all, you studied his outrage in college - wouldn't you want someone to study your outrage one day?. And then in 1999, you were proud that America bombed the Serbs over Kosovo, because you believed - you WANTED to believe - that they were committing a Holocaust there, murdering hundreds of thousands and raping the rest. You didn't want to believe that your government lied to you about it THIS TIME - they couldn't lie, cuz after all, there are too many checks and balances. Besides, admit it, you actually felt good when your country's bombs killed Serbs. You were part of an historical, moral mission. And when it turned out there wasn't Holocaust and you were wrong, you just moved on to the next righteous cause. Or not: you'd already got a job and you didn't really have time anymore.

[ComradeOm]

This is not, I repeat, NOT a battle between Gaddafi's glorious worker militias and the evil ruling classes of Benghazi. The main divide in this conflict is between East and West, Benghazi and Tripoli. People in the East are more likely to support the rebels, whereas people in the West are more likely to support Gaddafi. At least, this is intuitively how I've come to understand the partisan divideDo you have any idea where Misrata is? What of Al Khums or Zuwarah?

The latter saw local uprisings before being seized by Gaddafi forces using heavy artillery and warplanes. It is a similar story in many towns and villages around the capital. The discontent with Gaddafi does not obey any geographic divide but runs across the country; its merely that the dictatorship has so far succeeded in forcibly subduing much of western Libya

[Raubleaux]

Do you have any idea where Misrata is? What of Al Khums or Zuwarah?

The latter saw local uprisings before being seized by Gaddafi forces using heavy artillery and warplanes. It is a similar story in many towns and villages around the capital. The discontent with Gaddafi does not obey any geographic divide but runs across the country; its merely that the dictatorship has so far succeeded in forcibly subduing much of western Libya

The "popular uprising" is being repulsed by ordinary citizens in many cities. In your mind, all it would take is a few people in Tripoli to have a "protest" for you to immediately seize on it and scream "oh look, the 'uprising' is spreading to Tripoli!"

I like the fact that the towns that are firmly in control of the government are somehow by default being "ruled by terror and force." Yet the in the areas controlled by the "rebels" I assume the rebels enjoy 100% support in your imagination. The only reason there aren't pro-Gaddafi protests in Benghazi is because his supporters are probably terrified.

[robbo203]

Telling lies in order to avoid calling for the defeat of your own ruling capitalist class’s imperial war, will only make you look even more liberal than you already do.


Telling lies in order to elicit support for some other capitalist ruling class elsewhere in the world only confirms your own divide-and-rule capitalist posture on this matter.

[Sasha]

The "popular uprising" is being repulsed by ordinary citizens in many cities.

source that....

[ComradeOm]

The "popular uprising" is being repulsed by ordinary citizens in many cities"Ordinary citizens" wearing military fatigues and commanding armoured vehicles and warplanes?


In your mind, all it would take is a few people in Tripoli to have a "protest" for you to immediately seize on it and scream "oh look, the 'uprising' is spreading to Tripoli!"No, I'm talking about areas in which protesters took control of the town, thus necessitating a military response to restore state authority. That this is necessary directly contradicts any notion that the appeal of the revolt is geographically limited

[PhoenixAsh]

And if the workers support Gaddafi? What then? You going to oppose them too? :rolleyes:

Currently the workers are totally devided. And since none of them allign with socialism...we have a kind of a problem with supporting either side.

Do not fall for the pittrap. Its a reactionary civil war between two branches of capitalism/imperialism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, I would still oppose gadaffis rule but no, I would respect the will of its people. I wouldn't support an overthrow that goes against that as in contrast to you we are not in the business of supporting tyrannical junta coups.
But since you still can't show me any, substantiated or not, proof that gadaffi enjoys the popular support, no not even any proletarian support at all, I will happily continue to voice my support for the uprising.
You have been for example awfully quit in the thread where I called you out to source your gadaffi has more support than the uprising claims (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tvm-please-source-t152528/index.html?t=152528) and refuse to counter my arguments.


You know that it is impossible to rpovide any non slanted source on his support seeing as to the media completely backing the uprising and the intervention.

However....we are now a month into the whole sordid afair. The popular upring has not managed to spread and that is with xomplete air superiority and targetted atatcks against the military and infrastructure of area's outside protesters control.

There has been no widespread oputbreak of dissent in towns noty under rebel control. And there have been instances of people resistying against the rebels in their controlled area's.

I think it is fair to say that Gadadfii has more than marginal support in Libya and that in the very least it approaches the rebel support base.

[Sasha]

Currently the workers are totally devided.

i'm still wondering what brought you to this conclusion, just as you i have been following the conflict extensively, both through the media and some libyan people i know and i havent seen any proof, not even indication for substantial proletarian support for gadaffi outside the extensive security apperatus. I would really be intrested if you could direct me to some. To me it seem that all the older people say gadaffi lost the populair support about 20 years ago, all the young people say he never had it.

[Sasha]

However....we are now a month into the whole sordid afair. The popular upring has not managed to spread and that is with xomplete air superiority and targetted atatcks against the military and infrastructure of area's outside protesters control.

There has been no widespread oputbreak of dissent in towns noty under rebel control. And there have been instances of people resistying against the rebels in their controlled area's.


but except sirte (which doesnt have an large proletarian population to begin with and is strongly tied to the rulling elite through tribal favorism) the only substantial city not allying with the rebels is tripoli, and that did saw early mass anti-gadaffi demostrations in the workingclass area's until the brutal crackdown.

[CynicalIdealist]

Psycho,

It's a civil war. Of course some people support Gaddafi, or he would be overthrown in an instant. How much of the Libyan population supports Gaddafi, though? Regardless of that, how much of the population of Libya is pulling for Gaddafi merely over the rebels but not in general? How much of the population is pulling for the rebels, and how much merely over Gaddafi but not in general?

We can't really answer these questions yet, and I'm really fucking tired of both "anti-imperialists" and "liberals" thinking that they can. All we know for a fact is that both sides have their own base of support, the rebels primarily in the East and Gaddafi primarily in the West. I repeat: this is all we know about what Libyans think.

Now let's stop presuming on Libyan popular opinion and get the fuck out of that country. It's paternalistic for ANY of us to act like we know that's best for them, even if we have some rough outlook of NATO economic policy vis-a-vis Gaddafi economic policy.

[PhoenixAsh]

i'm still wondering what brought you to this conclusion, just as you i have been following the conflict extensively, both through the media and some libyan people i know and i havent seen any proof, not even indication for substantial proletarian support for gadaffi outside the extensive security apperatus. I would really be intrested if you could direct me to some. To me it seem that all the older people say gadaffi lost the populair support about 20 years ago, all the young people say he never had it.

The problem with the media is that its completely sided with the rebels at the cost of critical analysis for analysis sake and at the cost of reporting unbiased on the otehr side. The media seems to be serving a goal instead of the purpose of being media.

The other side of the coin is that the media which do tend to report on the Gadaffi side have their bias in a whole different direction and use their critical analysis to support Gadaffi or are serving a purpose to clean their own slate.

Between these two sides there is preciously little unbiased information to make an informed decission to support either side.

Because the critical analysis of both sides always seems to further the own agenda.


but except sirte (which doesnt have an large proletarian population to begin with and is strongly tied to the rulling elite through tribal favorism) the only substantial city not allying with the rebels is tripoli, and that did saw early mass anti-gadaffi demostrations in the workingclass area's until the brutal crackdown.

Yes..you are right. Whatever happened in the early days before the protests were hijacked is now not a good compas anymore.

The Rebel council hijacked the revolution and that means the working class is forced to decide between a dictator and proponents of imperialism to gain power to basically continue that very same regime.

They are two sides of the same origin as many of the current council are former ministers and diplomats who worked years and years in the old regime and their initial goal, if you read their communiques is to overthrow Gadaffi, not his system of government.