The Lybian rebels morph into Contras

[Red Future]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/22/john-mccain-praises-libya-rebels

Predator Drones ....like fucking Afghanistan again

[RadioRaheem84]

But I thought that these were the fighters against brutal dictatorship?:rolleyes:

If McCain is glowing about the rebels then they have to be like the fucking Contras or the Afghan Mujahideen.

Cut Social Security but increase aid to the Libyan rebel scum:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya

I wonder what Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! have to say about this after their glowing reports of the Libyan rebels.

[Rakhmetov]

;)No surprise there. The U.S.A. is going to experience Blowback from this. Bet on it.

[brigadista]

what do you mean "morph"??

[RedHal]

But I thought that these were the fighters against brutal dictatorship?:rolleyes:

If McCain is glowing about the rebels then they have to be like the fucking Contras or the Afghan Mujahideen.

Cut Social Security but increase aid to the Libyan rebel scum:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya

I wonder what Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! have to say about this after their glowing reports of the Libyan rebels.

Amy Goodman and DN still promoting the rebels, heck they had the former Libyan diplomat on their show, who was begging for intensification of Nato attacks! So this is expected from the DN crew.
Even with their rundown of headlines, it's all been Gadaffi atrocities, I don't think they've mentioned once the atrocities committed by the rebels.

[RadioRaheem84]

Amy Goodman and DN still promoting the rebels, heck they had the former Libyan diplomat on their show, who was begging for intensification of Nato attacks! So this is expected from the DN crew.
Even with their rundown of headlines, it's all been Gadaffi atrocities, I don't think they've mentioned once the atrocities committed by the rebels.

I am totally disappointed in the DN! crew.

The rebels have been revealed to be a hodgepodge of neo-liberals, disgruntled college students (not all necessarily bad), and Islamic extremists.

All led by former Libyan officials who were instrumental in Libya's neo-liberal reforms during the 90s. Upset that Gaddafi didn't go full blown neo-liberal, they've took it upon themselves to to make sure Libya is opened up to the international market.

Where are the pro-rebel voices here on revleft?

[Comrade1]

.

Where are the pro-rebel voices here on revleft?
I ate them all...:laugh:

[RadioRaheem84]

I ate them all...:laugh:

Wow. How long did it take you to get the taste of liberalism out of your mouth?

[Comrade1]

Wow. How long did it take you to get the taste of liberalism out of your mouth?
ehh it took alot of mouth wash I will tell you that, so much that I nationalized a mouth wash factory and made them give all their products to me. :lol:

[Red Future]

what do you mean "morph"??

Changed in nature and aims by the influence of the US

[The Vegan Marxist]

^I wouldn't say that. What we see today we saw in the beginning of the rebel uprising. Just not as much and not as clear. Thus why I was surprised to see leftists unconditionally support the rebels from the very beginning, despite not knowing anything about them whatsoever. I'm sure there were legitimate rebels with legitimate demands, but they seem to have either been dissolved or joined the ranks of pro-Gaddafi forces.

[Tim Finnegan]

Wait, so the faction of a heterogeneous movement which had the political and material support of an imperialistic superpower came to dominate that movement and thus marginalise the genuinely revolutionary factions? Pfft, don't be ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me that the Stalinists took control of the Republican faction during the Spanish Civil War... :rolleyes:

[BIG BROTHER]

I think that a sign that there are different factions in the Rebel side is the fact that on some instances, Rebels have taken over cities, and NATO still bombs them, while other Rebels carefully coordinate their attacks with NATO.

[Ligeia]

I think that a sign that there are different factions in the Rebel side is the fact that on some instances, Rebels have taken over cities, and NATO still bombs them, while other Rebels carefully coordinate their attacks with NATO.
Haven't found this information on any news site but according to the vice chancellor of Libya the rebels in Benghazi are divided into 3 factions:
islamists, a faction called revolution of 17th february and one faction led by a deserted libyan army general. (As reported by Telesur (http://twitter.com/#%21/rolandoteleSUR))

[Le Socialiste]

History is cyclical...what else is there to say? The rebels have catered to Western interests, to the detriment of all those involved (special shout-out goes to the Libyan people, who will be screwed no matter who wins). McCain is a fool.

[BIG BROTHER]

Haven't found this information on any news site but according to the vice chancellor of Libya the rebels in Benghazi are divided into 3 factions:
islamists, a faction called revolution of 17th february and one faction led by a deserted libyan army general. (As reported by Telesur (http://twitter.com/#%21/rolandoteleSUR))

I'll try to look for it, but there have been articles of NATO bombing "friendly" targets.

While mistakes do happen in the war, I think underneath this is just Imperialism's way of extermination the factions that it does not want.

Also lets keep in mind that the Imperialist monopoly over the media, means that any faction that does not support the US/NATO intervention will be covered up as much as it is possible.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wait, so the faction of a heterogeneous movement which had the political and material support of an imperialistic superpower came to dominate that movement and thus marginalise the genuinely revolutionary factions? Pfft, don't be ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me that the Stalinists took control of the Republican faction during the Spanish Civil War... :rolleyes:


Say what? Whatever genuine movement there may have been died out a while back. I am sure many of them are grudgingly in the 'pro-Gaddafi' ,anti-imperialist camp now. Which is why the rebels aren't doing so well and need NATO to save the rebellion.

[Ligeia]

I'll try to look for it, but there have been articles of NATO bombing "friendly" targets.

While mistakes do happen in the war, I think underneath this is just Imperialism's way of extermination the factions that it does not want.

Also lets keep in mind that the Imperialist monopoly over the media, means that any faction that does not support the US/NATO intervention will be covered up as much as it is possible.

I'm sorry, I meant "I haven't found the vice chancellor's statement about the rebels being divided into 3 factions on any english-speaking news site but I'll translate for you what I've found on Telesur."

I know exactly what you're talking about. I've read those articles about some rebels complaining about suspecting that NATO are bombing them purposefully.

That's why I posted that statement, because it was about the rebels being divided into factions and it's a fairly recent one,too. Though I haven't found any articles or other sources confirming or hinting at those 3 factions, I thought it was intresting nonetheless and probably has some truth in it.
The vice chancellor also said that the transitional council doesn't have any authority over Benghazi because of the city being divided into 3 factions.
(Telesurtwitter (http://twitter.com/#%21/rolandoteleSUR))

[Tim Finnegan]

Say what? Whatever genuine movement there may have been died out a while back. I am sure many of them are grudgingly in the 'pro-Gaddafi' ,anti-imperialist camp now. Which is why the rebels aren't doing so well and need NATO to save the rebellion.
You really think that these people are going to get out of a Gaddafi victory without at least some of them being purged? You don't know your pet fascist as well as you think.

[Jazzratt]

It turns out that in intra-capitalist conflict both sides are composed of utter pricks. My worldview has been blown wide open. Certainly this proves once and for all that it's impossible for Gaddafi to be a fatuous cocktoaster peddling transparently self-serving "anti-imperialist" drivel to credulous dickheads, after all his enemies are also bad.

I find it genuinely strange that anyone claiming to be a leftist or in some way aligned with the working class would support either camp in this conflict.

[RadioRaheem84]

You really think that these people are going to get out of a Gaddafi victory without at least some of them being purged? You don't know your pet fascist as well as you think.

Must your response include a pro-gaddafi quip?

I would personally join any anti-Gaddfi rebellion if it did not have the components that it does today.

I am sure the people that ran from the rebel movement would resume opposition after the imperialists were kicked out.

Even Geraldo Rivera on Fox News. who spent time with the rebels, said the US should not be arming these rag tag group of bat shit crazy people.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Must your response include a pro-gaddafi quip?

I would personally join any anti-Gaddfi rebellion if it did not have the components that it does today.

I am sure the people that ran from the rebel movement would resume opposition after the imperialists were kicked out.

Even Geraldo Rivera on Fox News. who spent time with the rebels, said the US should not be arming these rag tag group of bat shit crazy people.

That's because geraldo rivera is an idiot

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-6-2011/the-rivera-wild

Anyway, the fact that this rebellion started in multiple areas or spread quickly, and has remained even in places like Misratah, shows that overall a sizable portion of the Libyan people are willing to die to get Gaddafi out of power. I don't think many of the rebels at all are fighting for the control of Western capital over their economy. The National Transitional Council seems to have a lot of old neoliberal stooges, etc, but they're not the ones doing the fighting. They don't even seem to be leading the fighting in anything close to an effective or organized manner. I wouldn't be surprised if contradictions emerged within the rebel movement after the victory.

IMO if the rebellion is having a tough time without NATO, it's because it seems utterly disorganized and was not created by a "vanguard" or a "militia" or any other organized group, but was a genuinely popular uprising mixed with an attempt by a number of opportunists to hijack the movement. On the other hand, Gaddafi has the advantage of a professional command and control structure with trained soldiers (as opposed to angry students and middle aged men in pickup trucks)

[RadioRaheem84]

That's because geraldo rivera is an idiot

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-6-2011/the-rivera-wild

Anyway, the fact that this rebellion started in multiple areas or spread quickly, and has remained even in places like Misratah, shows that overall a sizable portion of the Libyan people are willing to die to get Gaddafi out of power. I don't think many of the rebels at all are fighting for the control of Western capital over their economy. The National Transitional Council seems to have a lot of old neoliberal stooges, etc, but they're not the ones doing the fighting. They don't even seem to be leading the fighting in anything close to an effective or organized manner. I wouldn't be surprised if contradictions emerged within the rebel movement after the victory.

IMO if the rebellion is having a tough time without NATO, it's because it seems utterly disorganized and was not created by a "vanguard" or a "militia" or any other organized group, but was a genuinely popular uprising mixed with an attempt by a number of opportunists to hijack the movement. On the other hand, Gaddafi has the advantage of a professional command and control structure with trained soldiers (as opposed to angry students and middle aged men in pickup trucks)

You're not serious are you?

Must you become the Christoper Hitchens of this forum with the consistent support for the rebels.

Again, no quips about loving Gaddafi, or your loving brutal leader and what not. Save it for someone who is actually actively supportive of Gaddafi.

[727Goon]

It turns out that in intra-capitalist conflict both sides are composed of utter pricks. My worldview has been blown wide open. Certainly this proves once and for all that it's impossible for Gaddafi to be a fatuous cocktoaster peddling transparently self-serving "anti-imperialist" drivel to credulous dickheads, after all his enemies are also bad.

I find it genuinely strange that anyone claiming to be a leftist or in some way aligned with the working class would support either camp in this conflict.

For real, on one hand you've got the reactionary rebels who are politically all over the place and support neo liberalism, and on the other you've got a guy who's the closest thing that the world has seen to a fascist government during the second half of the 20th century. Whoever wins, the working class loses.

[brigadista]

i personally don't trust any of the press reports coming out of libya -i really dont know what is going on there apart from the NATO intervention which is clearly to destabilise the country...

[Red Future]

It turns out that in intra-capitalist conflict both sides are composed of utter pricks. My worldview has been blown wide open. Certainly this proves once and for all that it's impossible for Gaddafi to be a fatuous cocktoaster peddling transparently self-serving "anti-imperialist" drivel to credulous dickheads, after all his enemies are also bad.

I find it genuinely strange that anyone claiming to be a leftist or in some way aligned with the working class would support either camp in this conflict.

Good point ..where is the Working Class in this conflict??:confused:

[KurtFF8]

But I thought that these were the fighters against brutal dictatorship?:rolleyes:

If McCain is glowing about the rebels then they have to be like the fucking Contras or the Afghan Mujahideen.

Cut Social Security but increase aid to the Libyan rebel scum:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya

I wonder what Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! have to say about this after their glowing reports of the Libyan rebels.

Democracy Now!'s coverage of Libya has been a mix of what Althusser would call a "guilty silence" (being silent about the valid criticisms about NATO and the rebels themselves) and an odd promotion of the rebels. This seems to be putting them in an awkward position of course, as well as other sectors of the Western Left

One example is the French Communist Party http://www.pcf.fr/8349:

By adopting, under pressure from France and Great Britain, a resolution authorizing military action and air strikes targeted the Security Council takes the risk of a gear by enrolling in a logic of war consequences hazardous. The French Communist Party, which has continued to demand the immediate cessation of operations and military repression have already claimed many civilian casualties and reiterates once again its condemnation of the regime of Gadhafi and his full support to the forces acting for democracy in Libya, with the National Transition Council. Heavy questions now arise. All the possibilities of direct aid or by the Arab States in rebellion have really been studied? Is this really the protection of the Libyan people that the Western powers are seeking? Experts, journalists already explained that it will send special forces to the ground and the aim is to topple the regime of Gaddafi ...
The French Communist Party, in these grave circumstances, recalls the disaster of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were triggered whenever the name of protecting people and democracy. It expresses its deep concern at the situation. It calls for greater vigilance. He also finally surprised the complicit silence surrounding the same time the suppression of popular movement in Bahrain.


(Using Google Translate here)


Of course the PCF has had problems in the past with its position on issues like Algeria. But I'm using this to highlight an example of the division in the Left itself, including when Immanuel Wallerstein was ranting about how "NATO wouldn't bomb Libya" and the like.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You're not serious are you?

Must you become the Christoper Hitchens of this forum with the consistent support for the rebels.

Again, no quips about loving Gaddafi, or your loving brutal leader and what not. Save it for someone who is actually actively supportive of Gaddafi.

I didn't voice unconditional support for all the rebels. Where did I say anything objectionable? I just think it's unfair to judge the broader movement to remove Gaddafi, since they're largely responding to societal contradictions he seems to be at fault for. I don't want to write off all the rebels as illegitimate or having illegitimate demands, and i think its unfair and overly simplistic to do so because their geographical and social heterogeneity seems to indicate the presence of a broader social movement. This doesn't mean I think all the rebels are wonderful people, or every decision made by the opportunists claiming to lead the rebels. That would be naive. As I said, the NTC are full of opportunists and the rebels lack any formal military training, and the rebellion itself is full of internal contradictions which seem to be under the surface as long as they are united in getting Gaddafi out of power.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Of course the PCF has had problems in the past with its position on issues like Algeria. But I'm using this to highlight an example of the division in the Left itself, including when Immanuel Wallerstein was ranting about how "NATO wouldn't bomb Libya" and the like.

I think we must remember that PCF is euro-communist horseshit and should not be taken seriously. That they side have a hard-on for the transitional council should come as no surprise given their social-democratic tendencies.

[KurtFF8]

I didn't voice unconditional support for all the rebels. Where did I say anything objectionable? I just think it's unfair to judge the broader movement to remove Gaddafi, since they're largely responding to societal contradictions he seems to be at fault for. I don't want to write off all the rebels as illegitimate or having illegitimate demands, and i think its unfair and overly simplistic to do so because their geographical and social heterogeneity seems to indicate the presence of a broader social movement. This doesn't mean I think all the rebels are wonderful people, or every decision made by the opportunists claiming to lead the rebels. That would be naive. As I said, the NTC are full of opportunists and the rebels lack any formal military training, and the rebellion itself is full of internal contradictions which seem to be under the surface as long as they are united in getting Gaddafi out of power.

And what, then, is the nature of that rebellion? The Gaddafi government itself is just "full of contradictions" as well (many on the Left tend to use this as an excuse for lack of analysis of an entity like a state).

I remain unconvinced that this rebellion is worth supporting, and if there was ever doubt, the NATO intervention should have clarified that.

[Chambered Word]

You're not serious are you?

Must you become the Christoper Hitchens of this forum with the consistent support for the rebels.

Aaaand this is coming from someone who just called the rebels a 'rag tag group of batshit crazy people' and hasn't even substantiated their insults with a real rebuttal. If he's the Christopher Hitchens of RevLeft, you and your buddies must be the other side of the social-patriotic coin.

[RadioRaheem84]

Aaaand this is coming from someone who just called the rebels a 'rag tag group of batshit crazy people' and hasn't even substantiated their insults with a real rebuttal. If he's the Christopher Hitchens of RevLeft, you and your buddies must be the other side of the social-patriotic coin.

Wait, so I am guessing that this is another pro-gaddafi lover quip?

I thought we were over these but apparently since you have no argument you resort to it.

The point still stands that the rebels have been revealed to be largely lacking of any democratic credentials.

If by real rebuttal you mean links to their bat shit crazyness, comb through these forums and you will find plenty of evidence.

I think the time is done for any apologizing of this rag tag group, they're more than willing to sell out the national sovereignty of their country to international hands. And if they think that will improve the lot of their people, then that makes them bat shit crazy.

That includes their revleft supporters.

[PhoenixAsh]

I can understand both sides of the coin.

BUT

everybody needs to understand that it is both sides of the SAME coin.

This means that Gadaffi, whatever he was...socialist or influenced by socialist...has long since abandoned that road. Any analysis of Libya can only lead to one conclusion...there may be some socialist or socialist like elements but ultimately the country is ruled by a group of people who are beholden to imperialists and capitalists and very much influenced by them if not ones themselves.

This also means that the rebels are currently led by reacvtionary factions which seem to make up the largest part of the group. Be they imperialists, capitalists, monachists....most of the leadership are diplomats, politicians and army personel which for years have not done one single iota to bring the state towards socialism. They simply are a new face to the same system. Whatever the revolution was...this has long passed....asking for imperialist intervention was just the first real clue.

The fact that this support was given illustrates that the imperialist lost faith in the regime as being sustainable to their interests (as we have seen happening in Egypt) and that the rebels are currently a reactionary faction...NO imperialist would knowingly support a socialist revolution or group without haveing many, many benefits in return and if it not directly influences their interests...either directly or indirectly by opposing another capitalist/imperialist competition.


So...what we as the revolutionary left should rally against is the imperialist forces trying to assert control.

After that we should rally against the current regime...and side with the workers....and direct our efforts to unite these workers by opposing any reactionary elemant in that movement.

As it stands now this is the only logical action...its currently a burgeoisie conflict....and neither side concurs with our ideology.

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree except for one issue:

The rebellion is led by people who felt that the Gaddafi regime was not compromising enough to the West and needed to adopt more neo-liberal reforms.

The rebellion is largely reactionary and wanting the international economic order to dominate Libyan policy.

The Gaddafi regime though is less reactionary and does not want to fully co-tail to the West and it's demands to open the floodgates to international capitalism.

Whatever the revolution was once before under Gaddafi is long gone. The guy is mostly a revolutionary who gave up and resorted to autocratic rule albeit with nationalist reforms to help the people. Other than that, he has capitulated to imperialism.

The point is while there were legitimate complaints about the regime, the opposition has been completely hijacked by the same neo-liberal reformers who never convinced Gaddafi to fully neo-liberalize. They've taken it upon themselves to just ditch him, steal a rebellion and get NATO guns to do their hard work.

I am sure many Libyans who were and still are against Gaddafi were wise enough to see that the rebellion is being led by the same people who led the charge to neo-liberalize their State in the first place. I am sure they're grudgingly supportive of the State against imperialism at this point.

[RadioRaheem84]

The gist: Even grudgingly supporting the regime is a more realistic and materially sound call to make than supporting a neo-liberal rebellion with idealist dreams of making the country a better place for democracy. I am not trying to say I approve of Gaddafi, but even the Gaddafi supporters make more sense than the rebellion supporters.

One is a realistic approach to the situation, the other is idealist fantasy. Hitchean/Euston Manifesto drivel.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree except for one issue:

The rebellion is led by people who felt that the Gaddafi regime was not compromising enough to the West and needed to adopt more neo-liberal reforms.

Agreed....this is also a very valid analysis.


The rebellion is largely reactionary and wanting the international economic order to dominate Libyan policy.

Its certainly led as such and by those forces.

What exactly the views are by workers who support the rebellion (and Gadaffi for that matter) is an unknown...both being torn between two different sets of propaganda.



The Gaddafi regime though is less reactionary and does not want to fully co-tail to the West and it's demands to open the floodgates to international capitalism.

I can accept that...but then again...the regime does stand for brutal oppression.



Whatever the revolution was once before under Gaddafi is long gone. The guy is mostly a revolutionary who gave up and resorted to autocratic rule albeit with nationalist reforms to help the people. Other than that, he has capitulated to imperialism.

agreed.




The point is while there were legitimate complaints about the regime, the opposition has been completely hijacked by the same neo-liberal reformers who never convinced Gaddafi to fully neo-liberalize. They've taken it upon themselves to just ditch him, steal a rebellion and get NATO guns to do their hard work.

I think that is a very good analysis.




I am sure many Libyans who were and still are against Gaddafi were wise enough to see that the rebellion is being led by the same people who led the charge to neo-liberalize their State in the first place. I am sure they're grudgingly supportive of the State against imperialism at this point.


I think there are workers on both sides wh are torn between what they actually want and what the current reality is.

I think they split over the issue of imperialism vs repression....though I realise that this one sentence is not adequately potraying the situation.

[Tim Finnegan]

The gist: Even grudgingly supporting the regime is a more realistic and materially sound call to make than supporting a neo-liberal rebellion with idealist dreams of making the country a better place for democracy. I am not trying to say I approve of Gaddafi, but even the Gaddafi supporters make more sense than the rebellion supporters.
I would suggest that, given your utter impotence in regards to the situation in Libya, that siding with either Gaddafi or Nato does nothing more than make you look bad. The pro-rebel, anti-intervention crowd are at least offer a perspective which is principled in basis and realistic in its self-confessed irrelevance to the concrete politics of Libya itself, but you're just indulging in a pointless pseudo-pragmatism for no reason, as far as I can tell, beyond a compulsion to reduce the situation to a binary and then pick a side. That, quite frankly, is just plain weird.

[RadioRaheem84]

The pro-rebel, anti-intervention crowd are at least offer a perspective which is principled in basis and realistic in its self-confessed irrelevance to the concrete politics of Libya itself

What a way to whitewash the fact that the pro-rebel position is idealistic and naive!!

And that is right, they do not consider the concrete politics of Libya itself, which means they think they're fighting a romantic battle against "fascism" or what not.

They take no interest in analyzing the actual material interests competing for the State and instead toss that all out for some naive fight against dictatorship.

Principled? HA. That made my day. Sounds like the faux left rhetoric used by pro-war lefties during the Iraq War.

A Matter of Principle was actually the title of the book of essays edited by Thomas Cushman (founder of Democratiya, a leading pro-war leftist rag) by supposed liberal-leftists who were against the Hussein regime and supportive of war on a matter of principle to "leftist" ideals.

I've been through all of this before Finnegan. The same rhetoric and the same "principled" ideas and disdain for the politics on the ground. All in the name of being principled anti-totalitarians.

And I never said that choosing Gaddafi is correct but that it at least makes more sense than the pro-rebel side as the movement has proven to be nothing more than an opportunist power grab by zealous neo-liberals.

Can you for once debate the issue instead of painting me to be so damn pro-Gaddafi. The only one showing any impotence on the Libyan question is you and your reluctance to offer an argument.

[RadioRaheem84]

And what, then, is the nature of that rebellion? The Gaddafi government itself is just "full of contradictions" as well (many on the Left tend to use this as an excuse for lack of analysis of an entity like a state).

I remain unconvinced that this rebellion is worth supporting, and if there was ever doubt, the NATO intervention should have clarified that.

This. The lack of analysis on the part of the pro-rebel crowd is astounding (then again the pro-Gaddafi, anti-imperialist crowd's lack of analysis on the regime itself can be just as astounding). I just want to be fair.

BUT

The fact that their camp have proven that they care not to analyze it and instead are working on "principle" alone leads me to think that support is less about supporting working class liberation and more about supporting a supposed romantic fight against dictatorship.

[Chambered Word]

This. The lack of analysis on the part of the pro-rebel crowd is astounding (then again the pro-Gaddafi, anti-imperialist crowd's lack of analysis on the regime itself can be just as astounding). I just want to be fair.

BUT

The fact that their camp have proven that they care not to analyze it and instead are working on "principle" alone leads me to think that support is less about supporting working class liberation and more about supporting a supposed romantic fight against dictatorship.

You can't really take a principled stance on something if you don't analyze it first, since you need an analysis to relate to it. :rolleyes:


The gist: Even grudgingly supporting the regime is a more realistic and materially sound call to make than supporting a neo-liberal rebellion with idealist dreams of making the country a better place for democracy. I am not trying to say I approve of Gaddafi, but even the Gaddafi supporters make more sense than the rebellion supporters.

One is a realistic approach to the situation, the other is idealist fantasy. Hitchean/Euston Manifesto drivel.

Do you know the meaning of the word 'idealist'? It describes better the gaggles of useful idiots who supported Gaddafi as a socialist and/or anti-imperialist based on his colourful rhetoric rather than actually analyzing material conditions.


Wait, so I am guessing that this is another pro-gaddafi lover quip?

I thought we were over these but apparently since you have no argument you resort to it.

The point still stands that the rebels have been revealed to be largely lacking of any democratic credentials.

I was replying to your little spat where you called someone Christopher Hitchens (I wish you'd find a new insult for once) for basically stating that the rebels were not a fully coherent, homogeneous group, because you would be forced to admit that Gaddafi's side is not progressive and the rebels are not all calling for intervention.


If by real rebuttal you mean links to their bat shit crazyness, comb through these forums and you will find plenty of evidence.

I think the time is done for any apologizing of this rag tag group, they're more than willing to sell out the national sovereignty of their country to international hands. And if they think that will improve the lot of their people, then that makes them bat shit crazy.

That includes their revleft supporters.

You might as well line up with the 'Kim Jong-Il/Stalin/Hitler were all insane' crowd and substitute mysticism for a serious analysis. :rolleyes:


I agree except for one issue:

The rebellion is led by people who felt that the Gaddafi regime was not compromising enough to the West and needed to adopt more neo-liberal reforms.

The rebellion is largely reactionary and wanting the international economic order to dominate Libyan policy.

The Gaddafi regime though is less reactionary and does not want to fully co-tail to the West and it's demands to open the floodgates to international capitalism.

Whatever the revolution was once before under Gaddafi is long gone. The guy is mostly a revolutionary who gave up and resorted to autocratic rule albeit with nationalist reforms to help the people. Other than that, he has capitulated to imperialism.

The point is while there were legitimate complaints about the regime, the opposition has been completely hijacked by the same neo-liberal reformers who never convinced Gaddafi to fully neo-liberalize. They've taken it upon themselves to just ditch him, steal a rebellion and get NATO guns to do their hard work.

I am sure many Libyans who were and still are against Gaddafi were wise enough to see that the rebellion is being led by the same people who led the charge to neo-liberalize their State in the first place. I am sure they're grudgingly supportive of the State against imperialism at this point.

More defenses of Gaddafi as an anti-imperialist, a once-revolutionary leader. Yawn.

[RadioRaheem84]

You can't really take a principled stance on something if you don't analyze it first, since you need an analysis to relate to it.


If the pro-rebel crowd had analyzed the situation they wouldn't be pro-rebel.



Do you know the meaning of the word 'idealist'? It describes better the gaggles of useful idiots who supported Gaddafi as a socialist and/or anti-imperialist based on his colourful rhetoric rather than actually analyzing material conditions.


Is this better than supporting the colorful language of the rebel crowd which is led by neo-liberals, and fought by Islamic extremists, monarchists and the like?

Just what is it about this rebel movement you guys are so enamored by?

What am I missing, that you're reading, about his wonderful group of brave men?



I was replying to your little spat where you called someone Christopher Hitchens (I wish you'd find a new insult for once) for basically stating that the rebels were not a fully coherent, homogeneous group, because you would be forced to admit that Gaddafi's side is not progressive and the rebels are not all calling for intervention.


I am the first to admit that the Gaddafi regime is not progressive. And the rebel movement, hijacked by the neo-liberal cabal has called for intervention.



More defenses of Gaddafi as an anti-imperialist, a once-revolutionary leader. Yawn.


More quips about me being a Gaddafi lover when I explicitly state the opposite. So you're denying that the situation is not like which I described?

But then again that is all you shills have, is to repeatedly insist that anyone not on the rebel side loves Gaddafi, and by default loves dictatorship.

Typical. I at least expected a little more out of you.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If the pro-rebel crowd had analyzed the situation they wouldn't be pro-rebel.


I think it's funny that you insist that you're not pro-Gaddafi while saying you think the Libyan government needs to win nonetheless, but that anyone who expresses any sympathy with the rebels is showing unconditional support to the worst elements of the rebellion.

All the analysis I've seen indicates that the rebellion is fought largely by disgruntled students and underemployed people, and largely from clans who were politically alienated under Gaddafi. I've seen no evidence that the majority of them are fighting for neoliberalism or a restoration of the monarchy. Instead, their agenda seems more limited to improved political rights and economic and social opportunity.

That the NTC has bourgeois or reactionary elements shouldn't surprise anyone, but this doesn't speak to the nature of the whole rebellion ... the Muslim Brotherhood joined the Egypt protests, but the fact that a bunch of old reactionaries supported the protests didn't mean that they were the driving force behind the rebellion.



Is this better than supporting the colorful language of the rebel crowd which is led by neo-liberals, and fought by Islamic extremists, monarchists and the like?

Just what is it about this rebel movement you guys are so enamored by?

What am I missing, that you're reading, about his wonderful group of brave men?

Are all the rebels monarchists or Islamic extremists? Is there any evidence of this? I imagine some might be, but not all.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fucking A, Shiva, you are still apologizing for the rebellion as some sort of complex and disorganized group of disgruntled people?

And the outcome from their victory would be what? Something more progressive? Even with the rebellion being completely hijacked by NTC and their Western backers?

You keep insisting that whatever Gaddafi was in the past is no more and probably never was, but you guys cannot see that what was the original opposition is no more and is now a movement for neo-liberalism led by opportunists.

Seriously, your analysis is beyond ridiculous. Do some homework, figure it out, then come back to me with something concrete. Til then you're in Euston Manifesto territory.

[Tim Finnegan]

Euston Manifesto
Why do I get the impression that you just found out what this is? :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Why do I get the impression that you just found out what this is? :rolleyes:

If anyone who knew me before, they would know that I knew about that a long time ago.

Point is, the same arguments you guys use in defense of the rebels mirror the arguments I used to use when I was a pro-war left hawk.

I read all the stuff; Dissent, Democratiya, Nick Cohen, Norman Geras, Johann Hari, Hitchens, supported the Euston Manifesto.

Finn, are you taking all of this personal? We disagree, we're not enemies.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fucking A, Shiva, you are still apologizing for the rebellion as some sort of complex and disorganized group of disgruntled people?


There is more evidence of this that I've seen than the reductionist argument that the rebels are an alliance of of monarchists, al qaeda and neoliberals to take Libyan oil, simply because there are people with those views amongst the broader rebel movement.


And the outcome from their victory would be what? Something more progressive? Even with the rebellion being completely hijacked by NTC and their Western backers?
I've seen no evidence that the neoliberal agenda of the NTC has completely hijacked the revolution, any more than the Egyptian military and Muslim Brotherhood completely hijacked the Egyptian revolution.

Predicting whether or not the new government will be more or less progressive is jumping the gun, but what is clear is that the country would at least be more dynamic, and therefore the forces of historical change could bring a leftist government into power. Considering Gaddafi's government caused the stagnation of Libya for decades, unless something weird happens its hard to see how a victory by Muammar could lead to a progressive society. On the contrary, Gaddafi was the guy condemning the protesters in Tunisia and accusing protesters in his own country of being hopped up on acid when they sought to make their demands ... the man will do anything to keep authentic popular movements from rising, including on the left.


You keep insisting that whatever Gaddafi was in the past is no more and probably never was, but you guys cannot see that what was the original opposition is no more and is now a movement for neo-liberalism led by opportunists. There's a difference between saying opportunists are in the movement, and that they are leading it. The rebels in Misratah, and recent reports of berber rebels in West Libya, indicate that on the contrary, that the rebellion remains fairly decentralized.



Seriously, your analysis is beyond ridiculous. Do some homework, figure it out, then come back to me with something concrete. Til then you're in Euston Manifesto territory. I asked for evidence that all the rebels are monarchists and neoliberals who don't have a broad base of popular support. If you have it then I'll be more than happy to admit that the analysis of the rebels as a complex and broad movement is wrong.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is probably a difference in what the self proclaimed leaders of the opposition want and the people on the ground struggling to fight want for Libya, IDK I concede to that, but it seems like what the former want has largely overshadowed the latter:


Mustafa Gheriani, a businessman and rebel spokesman, acknowledged the ragtag inefficiencies of the revolutionary councils but urged me not to believe Qaddafi’s charges of extremism. “The people here are looking to the West, not to some kind of socialist or other extreme system—that’s what we had here before,” he said. “But, if they become disappointed with the West, they may become easy prey for extremists.”



Gheriani tried to assure me that the new state the rebels envision would be led not by confused mobs or religious extremists but by “Western-educated intellectuals,” like him.



Libyans don’t know what their country is, much less what it will be.
Some things are clear, though. In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/04/04/110404taco_talk_anderson#ixzz1Kk0ZdH34

What they will get if they do not stop the opportunist NTC from calling in more favors from the West is Iraq-style "liberal democracy".

[bailey_187]

Why do I get the impression that you just found out what this is? :rolleyes:

lol nah trust me, raheem talks about Hitchens, Euston Manifesto alot

[RadioRaheem84]

:lol: Ok ill tone it down

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is probably a difference in what the self proclaimed leaders of the opposition want and the people on the ground struggling to fight want for Libya, IDK I concede to that, but it seems like what the former want has largely overshadowed the latter:


Perhaps ... it's really hard to say from an outsider's perspective. Either way, we're just folks on the internet in a far away land. I think history will be the judge in the end.



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/04/04/110404taco_talk_anderson#ixzz1Kk0ZdH34

What they will get if they do not stop the opportunist NTC from calling in more favors from the West is Iraq-style "liberal democracy".

True, and I totally agree with you that it's a serious concern. But if the problems that caused this rebellion had to do with underemployment, unreliable public services and a violently kleptocratic management, there is no reason to believe that the Libyan people would then accept free market fundamentalism or religious theocracy without at least some sectors fighting back.

I think the analogy with the Egyptian revolution, and the "Soft coup" by the military, is a good one. The NTC committed a soft coup on Gaddafi by stepping in "on behalf" of the rebels, but were not an entirely organic formulation from the rebellion itself.

[RadioRaheem84]

True, and I totally agree with you that it's a serious concern. But if the problems that caused this rebellion had to do with underemployment, unreliable public services and a violently kleptocratic management, there is no reason to believe that the Libyan people would then accept free market fundamentalism or religious theocracy without at least some sectors fighting back.


Let's hope that the people will reject free market reforms if the rebel/NATO alliance wins.

[Chambered Word]

There is probably a difference in what the self proclaimed leaders of the opposition want and the people on the ground struggling to fight want for Libya, IDK I concede to that, but it seems like what the former want has largely overshadowed the latter:


I agree, and Libyan workers are still capable of struggling for their own objectives.


Is this better than supporting the colorful language of the rebel crowd which is led by neo-liberals, and fought by Islamic extremists, monarchists and the like?

I'd rather support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and call for the working class to organize independently. You can argue til your fingers turn to bloody stumps on your keyboard about how unrealistic it is, the fact is that no amount of hot air from international communist sects is going to change the situation in Libya, and on the other hand if I was a Libyan I would rather push for the workers to organize independently in my own environment anyway (or at least not support Gaddafi due to the fact that I'd probably be fucking killed if he came to power over Libya again), instead of tailing a reactionary or the pro-intervention leadership of his opposition. Pseudo-pragmatism is only counter-productive.


Just what is it about this rebel movement you guys are so enamored by?

What am I missing, that you're reading, about his wonderful group of brave men?

I'm pretty sure women have participated in the protests and fighting against Gaddafi. Not accusing you of explicit sexism, but it comes off that way.


More quips about me being a Gaddafi lover when I explicitly state the opposite. So you're denying that the situation is not like which I described?

I didn't make any quips about you being a Gaddafi lover, I just stated the facts about what you were arguing. I was referring to these points in your post in particular:



The rebellion is largely reactionary and wanting the international economic order to dominate Libyan policy.

The Gaddafi regime though is less reactionary and does not want to fully co-tail to the West and it's demands to open the floodgates to international capitalism.

Whatever the revolution was once before under Gaddafi is long gone. The guy is mostly a revolutionary who gave up and resorted to autocratic rule albeit with nationalist reforms to help the people. Other than that, he has capitulated to imperialism.

Gaddafi was never a revolutionary of any sort, he came to power in a military coup. He didn't 'give up and resort' to autocratic rule and if there was any semblance of even bourgeois democracy in Libya he wouldn't be able to just resort to autocratic rule without a noteworthy struggle for power.


But then again that is all you shills have, is to repeatedly insist that anyone not on the rebel side loves Gaddafi, and by default loves dictatorship.

Typical. I at least expected a little more out of you.

I'm not saying that you love dictatorship, although the fact is if you support Gaddafi, you're supporting an autocrat, and when you defend him as staunchly as the PSLites on this forum it says something about your political orientation.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm not saying that you love dictatorship, although the fact is if you support Gaddafi, you're supporting an autocrat, and when you defend him as staunchly as the PSLites on this forum it says something about your political orientation.


And your whole post says that you lack the ability to read thoroughly. I never once said I was supportive of Gaddafi. I just said that at least the pro-Gaddafi supporters make more sense than the nonsense naive and idealist drivel you posted in support of the rebellion.

I would also push for an independent organization but the with opportunists hijacking the rebellion, and calling on NATO to do the hard work for them, an independent organization should be more worried about anti-imperialism at this point than Gaddafi.

This isn't about tailing a reactionary, it's about denying imperialists an upper hand in Libya.