Rebel parade

[khad]

KJQWmDQjkQM

Off to D.N.S.

[Comrade1]

No comment, I see a pick-up truck with dead people....some protest -_-

[khad]

this will provide context

0hf8hrLWaAk
v21AfK1SPHs
FgVU_hom0ns

[SacRedMan]

That's not what they show us on our TV. Only about Khaddafi and hes shitty regime, like they want you to believe I guess.

[The Red Next Door]

Pyscho, Where are you? Come and look at this mess. mphmphmph. sad, these your comrades right uh?

[Proukunin]

wtf? was that civilians or the army?

[lines]

wtf? was that civilians or the army?

Those were the anti-Gaddafi people.

People in the west are being tricked by the capitalist media into supporting anti-Gaddafi forces. Gaddafi isn't a bad guy though.

[Tommy4ever]

Why did you post a video with dead people on the front of a truck?

[SacRedMan]

Why did you post a video with dead people on the front of a truck?

I think the question is: why did they put dead people on the front of a truck? To let the people see that democracy also comes out of the barrel of a gun?

[Threetune]

This is fascist scum at work. Take note who is backing them.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

what was in the videos? they've been deleted

[Rusty Shackleford]

i love how the first one was removed on the ground of being shocking and disgusting.

[khad]

what was in the videos? they've been deleted
1st video: Rebel truck drives down a street in a rebel neighborhood with several freshly-killed black Africans stripped naked and stacked up on it like deer carcasses. Blood can be seen dripping off the hood and wild honking and cheering can be heard.

2nd video: A black worker is held and beaten by rebels at gunpoint. A rope is around his neck, indicating what would likely happen to him next.

3rd video: A black African is hanged on a bridge while the roaring crowd snaps off shots with their cameraphones.

4th video: In the early days of the revolt, government soldiers are captured and executed by the rebels. The rebels seize their arms, including armored vehicles, and blame the deaths on the government. Most, if not virtually all, of the "soldiers executed for not following orders" were likely the victims of the rebels and their media savvy.

[tracher999]

fuck all videos are down im always to late i hate that:(

[Fulanito de Tal]

This is fascist scum at work. Take note who is backing them.


http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/obama20uncle20tom.jpg

[Rooster]

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/obama20uncle20tom.jpg

Isn't that kinda racist?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course, lets not forget AP and al jazeera ran stories about gaddafi forcing african migrants to fight for him

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gaddafi-forcing-african-t152717/index.html

You also have a government which smears the victims of gang rape for being prostitutes and drug addicts, after beating them up and driving them away to undisclosed locations to be imprisoned and interrogated (reports of disappeared women in libya indicate that she's not alone in her situation but i havent heard anything independently verified)

[Fulanito de Tal]

Isn't that kinda racist?

Yes, the US is racist.

[timofey]

Of course, lets not forget AP and al jazeera ran stories about gaddafi forcing african migrants to fight for him

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gaddafi-forcing-african-t152717/index.html

You also have a government which smears the victims of gang rape for being prostitutes and drug addicts, after beating them up and driving them away to undisclosed locations to be imprisoned and interrogated (reports of disappeared women in libya indicate that she's not alone in her situation but i havent heard anything independently verified)

1. As I said in the other thread, it does look like typical bourgeois propaganda to me. Just as the claim of Gaddafi using "mercaneries" has basically been exposed as a total lie concocted by rebel forces to justify their anti-black pogroms, this is a sort of extension of this claim. That the bourgeois mass media will make up all kinds of lies to justify their imperialist slaughter is a given. We know they do this, the Iraqi Incubator Hoax being just one famous example. It is when they let information slip out that runs against their narrative that we should pay attention.

2. Even if it is true, forced conscription is something very typical in war. The USSR forced thousands of people to join the Red Army beginning in June of 1918.

3. There is no real verification of any of these stories of random brutality associated with conscription.

4. Again, this woman's claims were already discussed in another thread. It was pointed out to you that her claims were being investigated, and if they turn out to be true (and there is plenty of reason to think they are not), the soldiers will almost certainly be punished. I find it questionable that you could even treat the claims of this women as morally equivalent to the racist lynching videos uploaded to the internet by rebel forces and their sympathizers.

[khad]

There was also another video with testimony from girls in Benghazi claiming that they were gang raped by rebels.

Along with other pieces of evidence such as this, the video has been deleted from youtube.

[Sasha]

offtopic discussion between me and timofey moved here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-national-solidarity-t153590/index.html

[tracher999]

Yes, the US is racist.

i hate it they say they are not but thay always be facist and thay shall always be tot somebody kill them all:D

[Sword and Shield]

Shoot the rebels. All of them.

[Qayin]

Shoot the rebels. All of them.

Stick your head in an oven

[Rusty Shackleford]

Stick your head in an oven
pat your head in even intervals while rubbing your belly in a clockwise manner in synchronicity.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

1. As I said in the other thread, it does look like typical bourgeois propaganda to me. Just as the claim of Gaddafi using "mercaneries" has basically been exposed as a total lie concocted by rebel forces to justify their anti-black pogroms, this is a sort of extension of this claim. That the bourgeois mass media will make up all kinds of lies to justify their imperialist slaughter is a given. We know they do this, the Iraqi Incubator Hoax being just one famous example. It is when they let information slip out that runs against their narrative that we should pay attention.


This seems like a cop out. Al Jazeera was a relevant source when they were reporting on Egypt and Tunisia, now it's just bourgeois propaganda?



2. Even if it is true, forced conscription is something very typical in war. The USSR forced thousands of people to join the Red Army beginning in June of 1918.
This isn't 1918, and I think targeting vulnerable migrant workers over your own citizens is particularly bad. Anyways, if Gaddhafi is so popular, then he should be able to raise armies from his own people.


4. Again, this woman's claims were already discussed in another thread. It was pointed out to you that her claims were being investigated, and if they turn out to be true (and there is plenty of reason to think they are not), the soldiers will almost certainly be punished. I find it questionable that you could even treat the claims of this women as morally equivalent to the racist lynching videos uploaded to the internet by rebel forces and their sympathizers.I think the sexist slandering of this woman on state TV was beyond reproach for any leftist. The actions during and since the event don't show a serious effort to investigate the case. As for the racist lynchings ... there's no excuse for that, but I haven't seen any evidence that those actions represent all the rebels. Apparently protesters in Bahrain also lynched some Sunni immigrants after Sunni immigrants were forced to counter-protest ... but I hardly think that those actions are representative of all of the protesters in Bahrain. Maybe it does, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence. There are examples of excessive brutality, even racially motivated, in many revolutions. There were antisemitic attacks during the French revolution, but this was evidence of the false consciousness of the masses as much as it was any particular policy of persecution being executed by a central political force. Maybe the rebels are all racists, but it would be nice to get more facts before making sweeping analysis.


3. There is no real verification of any of these stories of random brutality associated with conscription.
Meh, Al Jazeera has been a reasonable source before on the Arab protests, without any evidence of their dishonesty on this issue trusting them is as reasonable as trusting anyone else.

[timofey]

This seems like a cop out. Al Jazeera was a relevant source when they were reporting on Egypt and Tunisia, now it's just bourgeois propaganda?What a strange thing to say. All the major media outlets are controlled by the bourgeoisie. They are also the source of most of our information. Being a "relevant" source of information and reporting in a manner that is consistent with bourgeois class interests are not mutually exclusive. Newspapers are filled with true stories, false stories, stories told from a view that makes one side look bad and the other good, stories that are intentionally manufactured by other forces and the people at the paper just 'believe,' etc. So far I've seen a total of two articles where this claim is made, and it looks like crap to me. Only a much more thorough investigation of the facts than what has been provided would convince me of any particular wrongdoing on the part of the Libyan government.


This isn't 1918, and I think targeting vulnerable migrant workers over your own citizens is particularly bad.Seeing as how it is the rebels who are murdering random black migrants, raping their women, and taking control of their homes and property, it seems to me they would make a good choice for targets of conscription to me (if that is what is happening, which there is no real proof of, just questionable allegations that too conveniently confirm other already discredited views about black "mercenaries" ).


Anyways, if Gaddhafi is so popular, then he should be able to raise armies from his own people.Who says he isn't? Most of the fighters you see on TV, fighting for the government, are Arab Libyans.


I think the sexist slandering of this woman on state TV was beyond reproach for any leftist.I disagree. People make up lies like this to demonize governments all the time. It's basically standard procedure. It looks likes a variation of the Iraqi Incubator Hoax. That particularly lie was created to win support amongst the population of the imperialist countries, as a way to personalize the conflict, and demonize the Iraqi government and Saddam. This appears no different.


The actions during and since the event don't show a serious effort to investigate the case.On what basis do you say this? What information do you have to indicate this is true?


As for the racist lynchings ... there's no excuse for that, but I haven't seen any evidence that those actions represent all the rebels.Just how many more videos need to be uploaded to the internet? Just how many more articles need to be posted talking about racial tensions in Libya? There are literally dozens and dozens of people watching this gruesome acts of violence, videotaping it with their cellphones. How large do the crowds in these videos need to be, before it becomes obvious that the rebels are stoking the flames of anti-black racism to justify their rebellion against the government?


Apparently protesters in Bahrain also lynched some Sunni immigrants after Sunni immigrants were forced to counter-protest ... but I hardly think that those actions are representative of all of the protesters in Bahrain.Again, we already know Libya is a society that has racial problems. We wouldn't even need to have this discussion, say, if there was a "rebellion" that had its strategic center in the US South, and videos of rebels lynching blacks and hispanic migrants were being uploaded to the internet. You wouldn't need to make excuses for this, and you sure as hell wouldn't accept any claims coming from these Southern rebels about the Northern government hiring black and Mexican mercenaries to put down their glorious revolution. Everyone would know immediately what this was all about.


Meh, Al Jazeera has been a reasonable source before on the Arab protests, without any evidence of their dishonesty on this issue trusting them is as reasonable as trusting anyone else.What a bizarre thing for a Leftist to "trust" any bourgeois media outlet. That Al-Jazeera lies about a lot of things is pretty obvious. I've had even personal dealings with their reporters, in which they basically fabricated a ridiculous narrative regarding my own protests. You don't seriously think the Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is "unbiased" do you? Do you not know the political connections of the man who runs Al-Jazeera? Do you think the cousin of the man who rules Qatar (which just signed a deal with the rebels to buy their oil to finance their rebellion) is just interested in helping people, that he is just in the media business (and it is a business) for the pursuit of truth? How could you be so naive as to suggest we should "trust" Al-Jazeera?

[punisa]

What a bizarre thing for a Leftist to "trust" any bourgeois media outlet. That Al-Jazeera lies about a lot of things is pretty obvious. I've had even personal dealings with their reporters, in which they basically fabricated a ridiculous narrative regarding my own protests. You don't seriously think the Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is "unbiased" do you? Do you not know the political connections of the man who runs Al-Jazeera? Do you think the cousin of the man who rules Qatar (which just signed a deal with the rebels to buy their oil to finance their rebellion) is just interested in helping people, that he is just in the media business (and it is a business) for the pursuit of truth? How could you be so naive as to suggest we should "trust" Al-Jazeera?

Spot on comrade.
Al-Jazeera is a propaganda machine and it would be wiser NOT to trust it (common sense).
And we simply must differentiate Al-Jazeera coverage between Egypt and Libya. During the revolution at the Tahrir square the coverage consisted mostly of LIVE reporting and raw footage from the ground.
In that particular situation (Egypt) I may say that Al-Jazeera did a great journalistic job.
Not much air time was spent on commentaries, the channel was simply a window from our monitor to the streets of Cairo.

Reporting was objective and it included all the important speeches by Mubarak, Obama etc. during those final hours.
Camera team on the ground was perfect, they provided minute by minute reports on the situation, the number of people on the streets, casualties and not much of anything else.


This took a completely different stance when along came Libya.
Position was anti-Gaddafi from the very start (member how they even somewhat tried to potray Mubarak as an elderly military man who can't resign because of his military pride? Hence suggesting it to be a nice thing?).
The facts quickly got replaced by speculations and fabrications. Colonel Gaddafi was portrayed as a monster who ordered aerial bombardment of innocent civilians (where is the proof?).
He was furthermore described as a vile "rich-beyond-imagination" tyrant who is in power solely by purchasing mercenaries from the south.
As if the 100% population of Libya were against him.

The way Al-Jazeera covered Libyan crisis so far provides some blatantly logical conclusion one can make if he thinks for a minute.
- First of all - this is an uprising by the separatists who wish to take the country's riches into their own hands.
- "Rebels" (unlike in Egypt, Tunisia, even Syria now) were almost immediately caring arms around. Apparently guns were confiscated from the military garrisons. Yeah right... the fact is that these are no rebels, but a paramilitary thugs ready to wage a war for their personal benefits.
Sure there will be some genuine common people who will join them (this always happens)
- Imperialists are loosing ground in Egypt and thus they decided to make the best of it by finally toppling Gaddafi and bring their people in.
- The so called "progressive" elements (which were active in Egypt etc) of young democracy-loving people are nothing more then paid and trained agents of the west.
(On that note: Research a bit of recent history. Like color revolutions in eastern Europe and especially the "OTPOR" revolution that toppled Milosevic in Serbia.
As time went by it has been reveled that virtually all key members and organizers were US agents.)

Plan is in motion to physically eliminate Gadaffi and take complete control over Libya. The fact that some leftist openly support (and secretly cheer) for this solution is disgraceful beyond words.

People carry revolutions, what could prevent the fall of Mubarak? The Egyptian army? There was no way back - the people have spoken and he had to fall.
What would happen with Gaddafi if the west hadn't intervene? Bengazi would fall and rebels would be driven out in a matter of days.
The fact that some of you are supporting a "forced revolution" orchestrated by NATO clearly shows that you have completely lost touch with reality.

[Tablo]

How about instead of supporting a capitalist dictator or a bunch of bourgeois rebel groups we instead support communist revolution? The suport you guys show for Gadaffi, a capitalist dictator, is disturbing.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

How about instead of supporting a capitalist dictator or a bunch of bourgeois rebel groups we instead support communist revolution? The suport you guys show for Gadaffi, a capitalist dictator, is disturbing.

You mean the cop-out solution which ends up being tacit support for whoever has the best firepower ie. the imperialists?

[punisa]

How about instead of supporting a capitalist dictator or a bunch of bourgeois rebel groups we instead support communist revolution? The suport you guys show for Gadaffi, a capitalist dictator, is disturbing.

I see much more potential for a communist revolution if Gaddafi stays in power.
I would prefer and would support a communist revolution in Libya, but guess what? That option (last time I checked) is not on table !

If the world really is approaching the dawn of the communist revolution led by the working class it will be much easier to substitute Gaddafi with a genuine working class dictatorship then a NATO run country.

It's disturbing how you show support for something that is not even there ! And by doing so staying mute when you should be opposing the imperialist aggression !

[Sword and Shield]

How about instead of supporting a capitalist dictator or a bunch of bourgeois rebel groups we instead support communist revolution? The suport you guys show for Gadaffi, a capitalist dictator, is disturbing.

We will always support whatever communists exist in Libya. Until communism becomes a viable force though, we need to do two things: try to keep conditions suitable for a communist revolution and try to minimize the suffering of the Libyan people. Both of those entail wanting Gaddafi to prevail over the rebels.

[Tablo]

I see much more potential for a communist revolution if Gaddafi stays in power.
I would prefer and would support a communist revolution in Libya, but guess what? That option (last time I checked) is not on table !

If the world really is approaching the dawn of the communist revolution led by the working class it will be much easier to substitute Gaddafi with a genuine working class dictatorship then a NATO run country.

It's disturbing how you show support for something that is not even there ! And by doing so staying mute when you should be opposing the imperialist aggression !
How is communist revolution not on the table? Why can't we support communist revolution even if it doesn't seem near? Guess we should quit organizing and drop our party membership.

I'm not saying I would prefer a NATO run country over Gadaffi, I'm saying I would support neither in favor of communism. Why can't we be consistent in opposing ALL dictators in favor of working class democratic rule? Last thing I want is for Libya to become the puppet state of imperialist powers. I've been involved in a couple protests opposing American/NATO intervention in Libya.

I oppose neither options presented in favor of the only option that will free the working class, communist revolution. I'm not saying those that hope Gadaffi will defeat the rebels are bad or anything(I can't really say I know how bad either are with so much propaganda floating around), my main problem is with those that actually support Gadaffi.

[Tablo]

We will always support whatever communists exist in Libya. Until communism becomes a viable force though, we need to do two things: try to keep conditions suitable for a communist revolution and try to minimize the suffering of the Libyan people. Both of those entail wanting Gaddafi to prevail over the rebels.
I don't see how keeping Gadaffi will help a communist revolution. I also don't see how the rebels winning would help it either. What conditions are necessary for a communist revolution to occur?

[Tablo]

You mean the cop-out solution which ends up being tacit support for whoever has the best firepower ie. the imperialists?
No, I don't want the imperialists to win. I want communist revolution.

[Sword and Shield]

I don't see how keeping Gadaffi will help a communist revolution. I also don't see how the rebels winning would help it either. What conditions are necessary for a communist revolution to occur?

Well one of the things that tends to make communist revolution easier is to have a sovereign social democratic government rather than a neo-liberal imperialist puppet government.

[Princess Luna]

Well one of the things that tends to make communist revolution easier is to have a sovereign social democratic government rather than a neo-liberal imperialist puppet government.
The so called "sovereign social democratic government" blinds the workers into thinking that the capitalist government is acting in their interests, while the Neo-liberal government makes little to no efforts to hide its true face, so i would say the latter is more apt for a Communist revolution.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What a strange thing to say. All the major media outlets are controlled by the bourgeoisie. They are also the source of most of our information. Being a "relevant" source of information and reporting in a manner that is consistent with bourgeois class interests are not mutually exclusive. Newspapers are filled with true stories, false stories, stories told from a view that makes one side look bad and the other good, stories that are intentionally manufactured by other forces and the people at the paper just 'believe,' etc. So far I've seen a total of two articles where this claim is made, and it looks like crap to me. Only a much more thorough investigation of the facts than what has been provided would convince me of any particular wrongdoing on the part of the Libyan government.


You have no basis whatsoever to say that those articles are crap. I'm sure if the story was about the rebels press-ganging migrants you wouldn't be so skeptical all of the sudden.

Anyways ... yes, the bourgeois media does lie and twist facts, but certain bourgeois media outlets are nonetheless more trustworthy than others.


Seeing as how it is the rebels who are murdering random black migrants, raping their women, and taking control of their homes and property, it seems to me they would make a good choice for targets of conscription to me (if that is what is happening, which there is no real proof of, just questionable allegations that too conveniently confirm other already discredited views about black "mercenaries" ).That's no reason to conscript them at gunpoint. They are a particularly vulnerable population with no legal protections. Anyways, if the rebels have racist elements (I can grant you that), then non-Arabic speaking black Africans are the LAST people you would want to forcefully conscript. Aside from obviously fueling the stories of African mercenaries, if these poor soldiers get captured, and your statements about racism in Libya are correct, then they are liable to receive a far worse treatment than Libyans would.

And the threat of death is a reprehensible punishment for objecting to conscription.


Who says he isn't? Most of the fighters you see on TV, fighting for the government, are Arab Libyans. The fact that his government feels the need to draft migrants with the threat of death IMO tells me that he is lacking support amongst his own people.


I disagree. People make up lies like this to demonize governments all the time. It's basically standard procedure. It looks likes a variation of the Iraqi Incubator Hoax. That particularly lie was created to win support amongst the population of the imperialist countries, as a way to personalize the conflict, and demonize the Iraqi government and Saddam. This appears no different.You are the first leftist I've ever seen who thinks its right for a government to slander a woman as a prostitute and a whore because she accused their goons of rape. TBH I think if you actually thought that that, then it deserves restriction, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt


On what basis do you say this? What information do you have to indicate this is true?The fact that they prevented her from talking to the press? The fact that they slandered her on state television? The fact that they detained her for a few days and released grainy footage of her "interrogation" to smear her further? I've seen no evidence of a serious attempt to deal with the issue by the Libyan government. The only exception was an interview which Saif Gaddafi organized with her and a CNN reporter (the CNN reporter alleges that Saif, perhaps one of the more virtuous members of the Gaddafi clan, expressed admiration for how brave she had been ... unfortunately, private admiration by one of Gaddafi's sons does absolutely nothing to fix her situation, but the fact that Saif believes her story makes it more credible too)


Again, we already know Libya is a society that has racial problems. We wouldn't even need to have this discussion, say, if there was a "rebellion" that had its strategic center in the US South, and videos of rebels lynching blacks and hispanic migrants were being uploaded to the internet. You wouldn't need to make excuses for this, and you sure as hell wouldn't accept any claims coming from these Southern rebels about the Northern government hiring black and Mexican mercenaries to put down their glorious revolution. Everyone would know immediately what this was all about.(1) If Libya has racial problems ... that might be the fault of the person whose in power for 40 years?

(2) A few videos still isn't representative of the whole movement. Again, I posted information about lynchings in other revolutions, including in the current revolution in Bahrain. It's tragic, but when "the masses" rebel, there are often bad elements which victimize innocent groups who they see as complicit in their oppression. I think antisemitic attacks during the French Revolution is an excellent example of this.

(3) It did turn out that there were mercenaries brought in from Africa. It doesn't justify the actions of racist rebels of course, but it's not like the rebels just made up the story about mercenaries as an excuse to lynch people. At worst, the use of mercenaries was exaggerated.


What a bizarre thing for a Leftist to "trust" any bourgeois media outlet. That Al-Jazeera lies about a lot of things is pretty obvious. I've had even personal dealings with their reporters, in which they basically fabricated a ridiculous narrative regarding my own protests. You don't seriously think the Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is "unbiased" do you? Do you not know the political connections of the man who runs Al-Jazeera? Do you think the cousin of the man who rules Qatar (which just signed a deal with the rebels to buy their oil to finance their rebellion) is just interested in helping people, that he is just in the media business (and it is a business) for the pursuit of truth? How could you be so naive as to suggest we should "trust" Al-Jazeera? I don't know the particular events you're talking about regarding them telling a fib about your protest, but I find it hard to believe that your protest would be the focus of a major bourgeois conspiracy (no offense). And I think if al Jazeera is a part of some bourgeois conspiracy to simply make stuff up about Gaddafi, you should have some better evidence than that. They did an excellent job of disclosing "Coalition" war lies in Iraq, the lies of Mubarak an Ben Ali, and they even reported on the brutality of Qatar's allied monarchy in Bahrain (albeit somewhat more reluctantly than Libya or Egypt, but they have still detailed the human rights abuses there in their reporting). If they were such a loyal pawn of the "international bourgeois" status quo, they probably would not have been so willing to tell the truth in Cairo or Tunis.

[Tablo]

Well one of the things that tends to make communist revolution easier is to have a sovereign social democratic government rather than a neo-liberal imperialist puppet government.
How so? I really don't see how the conditions for revolution would be better under those circumstances. Not saying I would support a neo-liberal puppet state over a sovereign social democratic government or anything, just wondering what you think the best conditions for a revolution are.

[Qayin]

Well one of the things that tends to make communist revolution easier is to have a sovereign social democratic government rather than a neo-liberal imperialist puppet government.
Yeah because fucking Gaddafi wants that to happen

[punisa]

How is communist revolution not on the table? Why can't we support communist revolution even if it doesn't seem near? Guess we should quit organizing and drop our party membership.

I'm not saying I would prefer a NATO run country over Gadaffi, I'm saying I would support neither in favor of communism. Why can't we be consistent in opposing ALL dictators in favor of working class democratic rule? Last thing I want is for Libya to become the puppet state of imperialist powers. I've been involved in a couple protests opposing American/NATO intervention in Libya.

I oppose neither options presented in favor of the only option that will free the working class, communist revolution. I'm not saying those that hope Gadaffi will defeat the rebels are bad or anything(I can't really say I know how bad either are with so much propaganda floating around), my main problem is with those that actually support Gadaffi.

It' pointless to call out someone for lack of support of a genuine communist revolution. We ALL are in favor of that.
But situation is never black and white (unfortunately).

Nobody here actually supports Gadaffi when it comes to his policies or ideology - there are simply no objective reasons to do so.
When I claim I "support" Gadaffi that simply means I recognize that Libya is in the state of war and my support goes to the side of his army.
This has nothing to do with my support of the way he runs Libya and I would always welcome a communist alternative.

I am disgusted by UN and NATO and the whole situation. Every single NATO airstrike makes me support Gadaffi even more and I will not use my political viewpoints in order to hide my genuine feelings.
If UN agreement simply enforced no-fly zone (as agreed) that would almost be justifiable. But it was soon proven to be a big fat lie.

As Fidel Castro pointed out (http://en.cubadebate.cu/reflections-fidel/2011/03/29/natos-fascist-war/) this is fascist war conducted by NATO.

[Threetune]

How about instead of supporting a capitalist dictator or a bunch of bourgeois rebel groups we instead support communist revolution? The suport you guys show for Gadaffi, a capitalist dictator, is disturbing.

It’s refreshing to see an argument that is ‘theoretically correct’ coming from a spontaneous feeling. You are the only one in this debate who has posted a Leninist position – apart from me. Funny that.
We don’t have to ‘support’ anything, other than our own revolution, but we do have to attack imperialism.

[Threetune]

It' pointless to call out someone for lack of support of a genuine communist revolution. We ALL are in favor of that.
But situation is never black and white (unfortunately).

Nobody here actually supports Gadaffi when it comes to his policies or ideology - there are simply no objective reasons to do so.
When I claim I "support" Gadaffi that simply means I recognize that Libya is in the state of war and my support goes to the side of his army.
This has nothing to do with my support of the way he runs Libya and I would always welcome a communist alternative.



You are giving wrong advice here comrade. The bloke is making some correct understanding about not “supporting” other movements. We don’t have to! Leninism has to rally all for attack on imperialism only.

[RadioRaheem84]

It' pointless to call out someone for lack of support of a genuine communist revolution. We ALL are in favor of that.
But situation is never black and white (unfortunately).

Nobody here actually supports Gadaffi when it comes to his policies or ideology - there are simply no objective reasons to do so.
When I claim I "support" Gadaffi that simply means I recognize that Libya is in the state of war and my support goes to the side of his army.
This has nothing to do with my support of the way he runs Libya and I would always welcome a communist alternative.

I am disgusted by UN and NATO and the whole situation. Every single NATO airstrike makes me support Gadaffi even more and I will not use my political viewpoints in order to hide my genuine feelings.
If UN agreement simply enforced no-fly zone (as agreed) that would almost be justifiable. But it was soon proven to be a big fat lie.

As Fidel Castro pointed out (http://en.cubadebate.cu/reflections-fidel/2011/03/29/natos-fascist-war/) this is fascist war conducted by NATO.

Excellent post!

Double thanks!

Why is it so hard for others to see it this way and instead claim a thousand times over that we're Gaddafi boot-lickers?

[agnixie]

Why is it so hard for others to see it this way and instead claim a thousand times over that we're Gaddafi boot-lickers?

Well, nobody except The Vegan Marxist, who keeps backing his sources with some pretty weird groups (inc. the New Pravda).

[Threetune]

Excellent post!

Double thanks!

Why is it so hard for others to see it this way and instead claim a thousand times over that we're Gaddafi boot-lickers?

Shit, then don't say you "support" Gaddafi when you don't. You are just confusing things at best. Talk straight comrades. Leninists do not “support” Gaddafi full stop. We expose attack and work for the defeat of the imperialists and their reps in Libya first and foremost. Get it?

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, nobody except The Vegan Marxist, who keeps backing his sources with some pretty weird groups (inc. the New Pravda).

His position (or your mis-characterization of it) is still more rational than supporting the rebels, finding some good in them as others say or sitting on the side lines.

[agnixie]

His position (or your mis-characterization of it) is still more rational than supporting the rebels, finding some good in them as others say or sitting on the side lines.

Finding some good in Qaddafi is no more rational than trying to find some good in the transitional council.

[RadioRaheem84]

Touche....

But then again, I am strictly talking about facing NATO.

[Sword and Shield]

Well, nobody except The Vegan Marxist, who keeps backing his sources with some pretty weird groups (inc. the New Pravda).

Better than not backing his sources at all (like such crazy claims as saying that Syria cooperated with Israel and Egypt against Palestine), or backing them with Western mainstream media (the same media that happily reported how there were WMDs in Iraq).

[agnixie]

Better than not backing his sources at all (like such crazy claims as saying that Syria cooperated with Israel and Egypt against Palestine), or backing them with Western mainstream media (the same media that happily reported how there were WMDs in Iraq).

I admitted I was trolling on Assad. As for western mainstream media, that would be Al-Jazeera the great station we all love at the time of the Iraq war, right? Funny how the honeymoon ends.

[Sword and Shield]

As for western mainstream media, that would be Al-Jazeera the great station we all love at the time of the Iraq war, right? Funny how the honeymoon ends.

Al Jazeera might not be as biased in favor of America, but it's nevertheless a very biased news source. Just look at its dismal coverage of what's happening in Bahrain: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/14/is-aljazeera-turning-a-blind-eye-to-bahrain/