Pro-Gaddafi Rally in Benghazi (April 25) [Archive]

greenwarbler

28th April 2011, 21:25

totally joking: the international subterfuge (medianotwithstanding, or sitting) involves the same parlaying as the carrying out of the continuing project of "The Big Game" in Africa during and after the Great War, after the "pouncing of the Panther" in 1908, ca, especially. Read Italy's ultimatum to Turkey in the leadup to the occupation of then-Tripoi (now Libya) -- basically, "we the Italian military feel that the continued presence of you Turks [who, albeit were still imperialists, in their own right] is inhibiting the continued and sustained presence of our newly established Italian business enterprise, and we bid you to remove yourselves immediately from the area" -- the Italians, to drive the point home, gave the Turks a day to respond !

When the Turks appealed to the European powers who had all already signed secret, and some not so secret deals -- the Entente Britain, France & Roosha, for instance -- splicing up the African continent, and were complicit with Italy's plans, the latter responded that "this is a matter of interest between yourselves [the Turks] and Italy".. Italy invaded and -- after the war broke out and came to a close, returned with 80,000 soldiers and after 25 years of battling internicene insurgencies by evil terrorist locals who didn't want the Italian flag hoisted in their backyard, succeeded in subduing what henceforth became known as Libya thank an Italian geographer, who began to use the Romanic label for the region around the time of the invasion).

Threetune

28th April 2011, 21:31

I thought every rebel was an brutal al-qaida neo-con liberal on acid that would lynch any gadaffi supporter on the spot? Funny that in reality they, in contrast to the regime don't brutally butcher peacefull demonstrators.

Try again...

No you didn’t, you thought the rebs were anti-government and anti-authoritarian, and that’s enough for you to fall in line behind any reactionary rabble.

What is clear from that video is that working class youth in that district oppose the reb authoritarians who are trying to impose their monarchist flag waving dictatorship on the city by hiding behind the civilians. Looks like they have more work to do to put down the youth rebellion in their midst.

We could ask why you are not backing this youth rebellion but we know that it is because you are now so deep into the reactionary cause you can’t escape with any ‘left’ credibility.

Other would be daft little ‘anarchists’ take note.

RedStarOverChina

28th April 2011, 21:36

This doesn't appear to be reported on mainstream media.

Proukunin

28th April 2011, 21:40

khad

28th April 2011, 21:41

This youtube comment piqued my interest:

"AMAZING , as soon as I TWITTER something against the rebels , my Google slows down , and tweets arive at the rate of 4 a minute , If I dont tweet anything , it goees back to several a second ... I know CIA freeks and rebel hackers are out there , so watch yourselves people."Also, this report has slipped through the cracks of the Western media hegemony, obviously rumor mixed in with fact:

"in three cities in the east there were pro gaddafi rallies......Benghazi, Tobruq and Albitha.....i know at least in Albitha alone, that they were bein fired upon, and people have been killed by the rebels"
This is Benghazi ok. I know those streets because I have been there. They have guts I must admit it. And they must really be fed up of those who took over their town to go out knowing that they will all be tied head down, shot, beheaded and their bodies burnt in a public execution. This is the pecaeful and democrativc way the terror squads of Benghazi deal with dissent. Also from the time these terrorists took Benghazi hostage more than 10,000 people have already misteriously disappeared.

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 21:41

This doesn't appear to be reported on mainstream media.

Neither was the fact that there were no slaughtered bodies in the Trepca mines in Kosovo. But that didn't stop NATO from destroying all of Yugoslavia. Libya's the same script all over again!

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 21:42

I'm not sure whether I'm for Gaddafi or for the rebels. I understand that the rebels are racist and Ive seen this in video's. But didn't Gaddafi start bombing the fuck out of them and shooting them for protesting in the beginning? I just can't understand whether the rebels are right or if Libya is Socialist at all? and am I stupid for being a Marxist and not knowing what side to be on? :blushing:

The "protests" started in Benghazi though, and they were already armed. Whether they fired first or not is another question. But really, it's quite obvious what's to come when people begin to march, locked and loaded.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 21:50

Fucking shit. The rebellion is more and more revealing itself to be something not worth supporting by any leftist.

Why the hell is there even anymore debate needed on this subject?

Rusty Shackleford

28th April 2011, 21:52

almost immediately after protests started, military leaders defected to the rebellion and people were picking up arms.

Proukunin

28th April 2011, 21:52

khad

28th April 2011, 21:55

I didn't realize that they were armed. Is there reports on this? I do think though that the US or NATO had interests in this before it happened. I dont know if it's a conspiracy but I think they planned something.
There's a video I linked here on this very topic. That video, however, has since been removed by youtube.

It was shot in the early days of the rebellion showing "protesters" looting an army base and driving off with armored vehicles.

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 21:59

I didn't realize that they were armed. Is there reports on this? I do think though that the US or NATO had interests in this before it happened. I dont know if it's a conspiracy but I think they planned something.

I'll have to search through to find the article I read on where it went into where the protest began and the rebels already containing weaponry.

As for whether or not the U.S. was behind this from the beginning, I don't believe so. They seemed to not want to get involved unless it was absolutely crucial, which then did come down to that on March 16, when Gaddafi announced that he was going to cut the West off from his oil supply completely, and instead do business with China, India and Russia (and more than likely Brazil as well, since that's the entire BRIC coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC)):

http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-gaddafi-arab/

Just a day after Gaddafi made this announcement, the U.S. then finally agreed to, not only just a no-fly zone but, air-strikes as well:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/17/us-considers-action-beyond-no-fly-zone/

Coincidence? I seriously fucking doubt it.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6wPJCcfjp8&feature=related

Where is the Gaddafi bloodbath?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_SHQe7lTl8&feature=related

Yugoslavia all over again!

Gaddafi is the new Milosevic.

Rusty Shackleford

28th April 2011, 22:01

The us has had its eyes on libya since the '69 revolution which kicked the USs largest foreign airbase out of the country and overthrow a british puppet monarchy.

Sword and Shield

28th April 2011, 22:01

and instead do business with China, India and Russia (and more than likely Brazil as well, since that's the entire BRIC coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC))

I think Brazil is an oil exporter, whereas China, India, and Russia are importers.

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 22:03

I think Brazil is an oil exporter, whereas China, India, and Russia are importers.

Not according to this:

http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/oil_imports.html

gorillafuck

28th April 2011, 22:11

Looks like not even all of Benghazi has fallen for the NATO-war scheme and have endorsed their opposition against the counterrevolutionary rebel forces!Wait, counter-revolutionary?

You are aware that Libya has never had a communist revolution, correct?

Communists don't use the word counter-revolutionary when applying to opponents of non-marxist governments.

just an fyi.

Sword and Shield

28th April 2011, 22:12

Not according to this:

http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/oil_imports.html

You're right. Oil exports are catching up to imports, but still behind.

http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/oil_exports.html

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:13

Well from their perspective I would assume the rebels are counterrevolutionary.

Not that it means they had a genuine revolution that proposed total social change but a revolution none the less.

I could see what Vegan was talking about though.

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 22:15

Wait, counter-revolutionary?

You are aware that Libya has never had a communist revolution, correct?

Communists don't use the word counter-revolutionary when applying to opponents of non-marxist governments.

just an fyi.

I am a Marxist-Leninist, but whether the conflicting nations are the opposite of one another, or between two capitalist countries, imperialism is a counterrevolutionary act against a nation's independence.

gorillafuck

28th April 2011, 22:22

I am a Marxist-Leninist*Menshevik

imperialism is a counterrevolutionary act against a nation's independence.Do you consider Saddam Hussein to have been revolutionary? After all, he was ousted by imperialism, which according to you is always constituting the title "counter-revolutionary". And if the US military invasion was counter-revolutionary then they must have been combating revolutionaries.

Proukunin

28th April 2011, 22:24

I gotcha. I understand this. I was kind of thinking outside the box in terms of the US or NATO plotting all of it.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:26

Off topic, Zeek.

You're right, for another topic.

Threetune

28th April 2011, 22:31

I didn't realize that they were armed. Is there reports on this? I do think though that the US or NATO had interests in this before it happened. I dont know if it's a conspiracy but I think they planned something.

The difference between Tunisia and Egypt on the one hand and Libya on the other is the speed with which the Libyan rebs got armed and attacked police stations etc. These are not the ‘normal’ actions of a popular revolutionary movement. More like the incendiary actions of provocateurs endangering everyone.

Chimurenga.

28th April 2011, 22:44

You are aware that Libya has never had a communist revolution, correct?

I wasn't aware the revolutions had to be *explictly* Communist. I guess the French Revolution wasn't really a revolution...

:rolleyes:

Anyways, whether you like it or not, Libya did have a revolution which abolished the monarchy and a popular regime was in power that dramatically improved the living conditions and provided material aid and assistance to liberation movements all over the world. The rebel leadership wishes to undo the gains of that revolution and become a puppet of the West. Therefore, they are counter-revolutionary.

*Menshevik

It's a "Menshevik" position to unconditionally oppose imperialism? :confused:

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Threetune

28th April 2011, 22:48

I didn't realize that they were armed. Is there reports on this? I do think though that the US or NATO had interests in this before it happened. I dont know if it's a conspiracy but I think they planned something.

The difference between Tunisia and Egypt on the one hand and Libya on the other is the speed with which the Libyan rebs got armed and attacked police stations etc. These are not the ‘normal’ actions of a popular revolutionary movement. More like the incendiary actions of provocateurs endangering everyone.

agnixie

28th April 2011, 22:48

Neither was the fact that there were no slaughtered bodies in the Trepca mines in Kosovo. But that didn't stop NATO from destroying all of Yugoslavia. Libya's the same script all over again!

I figure it was all about the anti imperialist Radical and their chetnik militias :rolleyes:

Tommy4ever

28th April 2011, 23:21

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:26

I haven't been reading revleft threads on Libya for a long while because the Gadaffi supporters depressed me too much. Are there still lots of 'Anti-Imperialist' Gadaffi fans about?

You do realise you can support neither the rebels nor the tyrant right?

I thought you would've figured out by now that you can be anti-imperialist and not be pro-Gaddafi, right?

Is that concept so hard to fathom? Would not a NATO restructuring be worse for the people of Libya?

agnixie

28th April 2011, 23:31

I thought you would've figured out by now that you can be anti-imperialist and not be pro-Gaddafi, right?

Is that concept so hard to fathom? Would not a NATO restructuring be worse for the people of Libya?

A neo liberal NATO lapdog with probably third positionist leanings?
Sounds like Qaddafi already, only with NATO guns to prop him up.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:35

A neo liberal NATO lapdog with probably third positionist leanings?
Sounds like Qaddafi already, only with NATO guns to prop him up.

WTF are you talking about? You're bonkers! :confused:

agnixie

28th April 2011, 23:43

WTF are you talking about? You're bonkers! :confused:

I'm probably too stuck on Pinochet, but he was a third-way-ist with neoliberal economics. Thus why I figured that's what to expect from NATO. Qaddafi was certainly a third positionist, and was certainly going further and further into neoliberal economics.

Also the one with NATO guns to prop them up is obviously not Qaddafi. There's a limit to having bad faith.

Sir Comradical

28th April 2011, 23:52

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:54

How is what you just said, Sir Comocidal, not an obvious analysis to others?

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:58

I'm probably too stuck on Pinochet, but he was a third-way-ist with neoliberal economics. Thus why I figured that's what to expect from NATO. Qaddafi was certainly a third positionist, and was certainly going further and further into neoliberal economics.

Also the one with NATO guns to prop them up is obviously not Qaddafi. There's a limit to having bad faith.

Pinochet was not third way. The administrations that followed after him were Third Way, and third way wasn't ushered in until Thatcher stepped down and Clinton (the originator) and Blair assumed office. Third Way was a big late 80s, 90s.

Pinochet was a typical military Keynesian running the economy into the ground until he recruited the Chicago Boys for neo-liberal reforms. Luckily for him they already had a draft written out called "The Brick", by which they meant to hurl at the state sector.

The Chilean dictator was in no way shape or form like Gaddafi. That is just a horrible comparison.

Especially if you mean third way, non-aligned type of third way.

For the most part, your analysis is so bad, I don't know what you're talking about half the time.

Sir Comradical

28th April 2011, 23:58

How is what you just said, Sir Comocidal, not an obvious analysis to others?

Don't know. I don't know how obvious it can get. The rebels fly the flag of the monarchy, they have links with Al-Qaeda, they're being supported by NATO and the EU has frozen Libyan assets.

agnixie

29th April 2011, 00:01

Pinochet was not third way. The administrations that followed after him were Third Way, and third way wasn't ushered in until Thatcher stepped down and Clinton (the originator) and Blair assumed office. Third Way was a big late 80s, 90s.

Pinochet was a typical military Keynesian running the economy into the ground until he recruited the Chicago Boys for neo-liberal reforms. Luckily for him they already had a draft written out called "The Brick", by which they meant to hurl at the state sector.

The Chilean dictator was in no way shape or form like Gaddafi. That is just a horrible comparison.

Especially if you mean third way, non-aligned type of third way.

For the most part, your analysis is so bad, I don't know what you're talking about half the time.

Third positionism, not third way. Which a right wing reactionary keynesian military dictator would be pretty much, especially as third positionism tends to be a wide spectrum (obviously since fascism doesn't really have such a thing as fascist economics for one).

they have links with Al-Qaeda
yeah, that thing about western bogeymen...

Kassad

29th April 2011, 00:08

I just love that all those who cheerlead the opposition have shut right the fuck up. I haven't seen any comments as to why these "revolutionaries" made a capitulation to imperialism. What gives?

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 00:12

Third positionism, not third way. Which a right wing reactionary keynesian military dictator would be pretty much, especially as third positionism tends to be a wide spectrum (obviously since fascism doesn't really have such a thing as fascist economics for one).

Nasser, Sukarno, and Gaddafi would be closer to what you're talking about.

Pinochet is more in the Suharto, Ferdinand Marco and Greek Generals camp.

The Vegan Marxist

29th April 2011, 01:00

*Menshevik

I feel sorry for your confusion.

Marxism-Leninism is of the anti-imperialist movement. We believe in national liberation, despite whether or not said nation is capitalist or socialist. I see no Menshevik study on this whatsoever; thus, your confusion.

Threetune

29th April 2011, 01:03

I haven't been reading revleft threads on Libya for a long while because the Gadaffi supporters depressed me too much. Are there still lots of 'Anti-Imperialist' Gadaffi fans about?

You do realise you can support neither the rebels nor the tyrant right?

Leninism has its own agenda and policy. Read the 32 thick books. We don’t “support” opportunist economist trades union leaders, even if they do have a big working class union membership. We don’t “support” declassed anarchist youth riots, even if their course is “justified” and it often is. We don’t “support” even the bravest nationalist anti-imperialists – without criticism. We don’t “support” every tom, dick or harry who looks like a “rebel” from any class or background. We educate ourselves to ATTACK the stinking war mongering imperialists, their stooges and apologists. That is what Leninists do. That is what Leninism is all abot.

Os Cangaceiros

29th April 2011, 01:24

I think what Zeekloid was refering to was the Menshevik belief that a native bourgeoisie had to be built in Russia before a "true" proletarian revolution could be accomplished.

The Vegan Marxist

29th April 2011, 01:27

I think what Zeekloid was refering to was the Menshevik belief that a native bourgeoisie had to be built in Russia before a "true" proletarian revolution could be accomplished.

If that's the case, no one's saying that a real social revolution can't take place in these areas. I'm sure all of us would support a socialist revolution if it took place. Our position, right now, is to defend a country (Libya) from clear imperialist attacks by that of NATO. This is purely a war to determine whether or not the working class of said bourgeois nation will suffer more or less. We'd rather have them suffer less; thus, why we're strictly opposed to any imperialist invasion.

Qayin

29th April 2011, 11:32

I just love that all those who cheerlead the opposition have shut right the fuck up

Then let me shut the fuck down..
Down with Gaddafi.

Sasha

29th April 2011, 11:54

Still here too, still haven't seen anything to change my position, just done with arguing the endless parade of fallacys and strawmans. You only "won" as in the tea-party wins debates, at an certain point sensible people just give up debating an brick wall, especially if said wall keeps singing "lalala can't hear you liberal neo-con al-qaida jihadist" with its fingers in its ears....

Qayin

29th April 2011, 11:56

I'm exposed. Not only am I high on drugs I am an Islamist. PRAISE NATO DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Kassad

29th April 2011, 14:59

Damn, psycho. I can already hear how much it strains you to talk with your foot in your mouth.

dernier combat

29th April 2011, 15:44

This entire thread is one big clusterfuck of strawmen, ad hominem attacks, counter-productive flaming and ego-stroking.

So in short, it's looking pretty similar to most other threads I've seen on here.

Sasha

29th April 2011, 16:05

Damn, psycho. I can already hear how much it strains you to talk with your foot in your mouth.

lol, an stalinist who dares to predict someone else will end up on the wrong side of history, the sweet irony...

robbo203

29th April 2011, 16:21

I just love that all those who cheerlead the opposition have shut right the fuck up. I haven't seen any comments as to why these "revolutionaries" made a capitulation to imperialism. What gives?

I just love the way the supporters of the billionaire capitalist trigger happy tyrant, Gaddafi, capitulate to his own little brand of imperialism

"The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages sovereign wealth
funds estimated at about $70 billion U.S., rising to more than $150 billion if you include foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more. Even if they are lower than those of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Libyan sovereign wealth funds have been characterized by their rapid growth. When LIA was established in 2006, it had $40 billion at its disposal. In just five years, LIA has invested over one hundred companies in North Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. and South America: holding, banking, real estate, industries,oil companies and others." From Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\
10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca)

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 16:26

I just love the way the supporters of the billionaire capitalist trigger happy tyrant, Gaddafi, capitulate to his own little brand of imperialism

"The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages sovereign wealth
funds estimated at about $70 billion U.S., rising to more than $150 billion if you include foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more. Even if they are lower than those of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Libyan sovereign wealth funds have been characterized by their rapid growth. When LIA was established in 2006, it had $40 billion at its disposal. In just five years, LIA has invested over one hundred companies in North Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. and South America: holding, banking, real estate, industries,oil companies and others." From Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\
10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca)

Wait you are complaining about him being imperialist against the West by buying Western companies? :confused:

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 16:29

The difference between Tunisia and Egypt on the one hand and Libya on the other is the speed with which the Libyan rebs got armed and attacked police stations etc. These are not the ‘normal’ actions of a popular revolutionary movement. More like the incendiary actions of provocateurs endangering everyone.

The initial demonstrations for several weeks were unarmed, and were being shot down. The rebels became armed, and in fact, became rebels, when the military in Benghazi decided it didn't feel like shooting its own people anymore, and stopped resisting. This allowed the people there to seize the arms in the arsenals, and from the security.

This is hardly evidence of a vast conspiracy of imperialism.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 16:29

Kassad

29th April 2011, 16:30

lol, an stalinist who dares to predict someone else will end up on the wrong side of history, the sweet irony...

As long as there's people like you to cheerlead counterrevolution and imperialist expansion, there's a good chance none of us will wind up making history any time soon.

Chambered Word

29th April 2011, 16:36

Anyways, whether you like it or not, Libya did have a revolution which abolished the monarchy and a popular regime was in power that dramatically improved the living conditions and provided material aid and assistance to liberation movements all over the world. The rebel leadership wishes to undo the gains of that revolution and become a puppet of the West. Therefore, they are counter-revolutionary.

It was a military coup and even if it was a revolution, it's already been over for years.

I think what Zeekloid was refering to was the Menshevik belief that a native bourgeoisie had to be built in Russia before a "true" proletarian revolution could be accomplished.

I thought he was making a comparison between Plekhanov's social patriotism and TVM's position on Gaddafi.

I just love that all those who cheerlead the opposition have shut right the fuck up. I haven't seen any comments as to why these "revolutionaries" made a capitulation to imperialism. What gives?

The majority of anti-Gaddafi posts I've seen were pretty reserved and most posters didn't admit support for the rebels, your open support for a dictator (even before NATO came into the equation) along the lines of some warped concept of anti-imperialism comes much closer to 'cheerleading' than anything the rest of us have said. I pretty much agree with what psycho said, though:

You only "won" as in the tea-party wins debates, at an certain point sensible people just give up debating an brick wall, especially if said wall keeps singing "lalala can't hear you liberal neo-con al-qaida jihadist" with its fingers in its ears....

Sometimes I wonder if your 'discussions' in real life politics are like this. :confused:

I just love the way the supporters of the billionaire capitalist trigger happy tyrant, Gaddafi, capitulate to his own little brand of imperialism

"The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages sovereign wealth
funds estimated at about $70 billion U.S., rising to more than $150 billion if you include foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more. Even if they are lower than those of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Libyan sovereign wealth funds have been characterized by their rapid growth. When LIA was established in 2006, it had $40 billion at its disposal. In just five years, LIA has invested over one hundred companies in North Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. and South America: holding, banking, real estate, industries,oil companies and others." From Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\
10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN201\10424&articleId=24479www.GlobalResearch.ca)

:laugh: Don't bother, he's an anti-imperialist now due to the virtue of the fact that NATO is attacking Libya. Never mind that the Marcyites defended him just as persistently before that.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 16:37

Is all the animosity from the other side really about us "supporting" Gaddafi or about their support for an obvious reactionary rebel movement?

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 16:39

Wait you are complaining about him being imperialist against the West by buying Western companies? :confused:

The point is, that Qaddafi is not an anti-imperialist, and has not been one for a long time. As Janet says, "What have you done for me lately?" It's been a generation since Qaddafi could be called progressive (and he was never revolutionary).

The other point is that imperialism is NOT big countries beating up on little countries. That's militarism, which we must oppose. Imperialism is the global capitalist class, of which Qaddafi is a part, exploiting the global proletariat. The capitalists of the West have more in common with Qaddafi than the MLs of the West have with Qaddafi. It's Brand A having a dispute with Brand B, and the workers of both companies getting fucked.

The rev left is split between two camps, one which supports a member of the imperialist class, Qaddafi, and one which supports a section of the people of Libya, which is being aided by other members of the imperialist class.

Chambered Word

29th April 2011, 16:39

Is all the animosity from the other side really about us "supporting" Gaddafi or about their support for an obvious reactionary rebel movement?

'We don't really "support" Gaddafi, why do you support the rebels?!'

Just the usual distortions and strawmen. :lol:

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 16:42

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 16:45

'We don't really "support" Gaddafi, why do you support the rebels?!'

Just the usual distortions and strawmen. :lol:

Even if you don't. They're rebellion is kind of hard to avoid, no matter how "principled" you are.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 16:52

The point is, that Qaddafi is not an anti-imperialist, and has not been one for a long time. As Janet says, "What have you done for me lately?" It's been a generation since Qaddafi could be called progressive (and he was never revolutionary).

The other point is that imperialism is NOT big countries beating up on little countries. That's militarism, which we must oppose. Imperialism is the global capitalist class, of which Qaddafi is a part, exploiting the global proletariat. The capitalists of the West have more in common with Qaddafi than the MLs of the West have with Qaddafi. It's Brand A having a dispute with Brand B, and the workers of both companies getting fucked.

The rev left is split between two camps, one which supports a member of the imperialist class, Qaddafi, and one which supports a section of the people of Libya, which is being aided by other members of the imperialist class.

But you're forgetting that this is also a matter of the West aiding a section of the people who are being led (or hijacked) by neo-liberal opportunists, some of which defected because they wanted Gaddafi to open the flood gates to international capitalism, something Gaddafi (while capitulated) has not yet done.

The situation is a messy one, but what are Libyans supposed to do? Allow for NATO to aid their compadres in their mission to fully liberalize Libya?

robbo203

29th April 2011, 16:58

Wait you are complaining about him being imperialist against the West by buying Western companies? :confused:

What I am saying is imperialism is intrinsic to capitalism and latent if not manifest in every part of the world. It is far from being confined to "western imperialism" as that dreary claque of PSL drones are constantly wittering on about it. Libya's own imperialist aspirations are evidenced by the data I provided and are undeniable.

The answer is not to support one bunch of thieving capitalist bastards in their struggles against another but to say loudly and clearly a plague on both your houses. Do I support the the billionaire scumbag Gaddafi who authorises the shooting down of unarmed working class protestors? Hell no! Do I support the intervention of western powers with their sick hypocritcal profession of concern for civilians? Of course not.

Why cannot people get it through their heads that you dont have to take sides on this issue. The scumbag Gaddafi must go but to involve other capitalist states in the removal of his regime is a folly that the rebels may yet live to regret. But then the "rebels" are not some monolithic group and their goals are decidedly mixed

dernier combat

29th April 2011, 17:00

Info keeps coming on about how reactionary and pro-western the rebels are, along with info about pockets of Islamic extremists are also joining, the logistical, financial, and political support by Western leaders, representatives have admitted to not wanting socialism, etc.

And we're the "brick wall"?!
Pretty much. I mean, I haven't even seen any damming evidence for anyone in this thread supporting the rebels (excluding psycho's first post, which seemed to me anyway like he was merely noticing inconsistencies between the generalisation of the rebels as savages [though some may do some pretty disgusting shit, not all are racists who behead blacks without a second thought. It's simply an incorrect generalisation] given by RL members in previous threads, and the lack of any rebel intervention against the pro-Qaddafi supporters rallying in the video), yet the predominantly ML anti-impie camp on here insists that all anti-Qaddafi folk on here are pro-rebel by default, despite repeated claims from us to the contrary.

As a matter of principle, no communist worth their salt should be supporting Qaddafi or the rebels (There are genuine elements of anti-capitalist resistance within the rebels, and there are also masses of reactionaries of all sorts within the rebels too. The rebels are just a hodge-podge of various elements coming from varying economic backgrounds and of varying politics that, for whatever reason, oppose Qaddafi's regime. Unfortunately the reactionary elements have gotten NATO's assistance, which does discredit any non-reactionaries still within the rebel camp to an extent).

PhoenixAsh

29th April 2011, 17:02

...and as long as there are people cheerleading for a bloody dictator that will about accomplish the very same.

Just to be comepletely accurate on when we are not going to accomplish anything.

But this is not about you...or anybody else specifically. I am sorry if it seems I am attacking you directly because I am not trying to that.

I do not want to exclude ANYBODY from what I have to say about this fucked up flooding of the board with the umpth thread degenerating to how fucking wrong everybody else is. Because I really, really, really had it with that...its getting fucking old fucking fast. The continued and milked out shitfests about whose anti-imperialism is better or whose communism is better....fuck

Everybody...Everybody... needs to take a step back and a deep breath and actually fucking remember that insane continued debates which will eventually end in a divisionary and sectarian yes-no childish shit fests actually accomplishes NOTHING but devide us even further.

We all oppose imperialism and that is now, pressently, the very first threat to a proletarian revolution and the proletariat of Lybia. THAT is what we should oppose in our streets and for all I fucking care in our ballot boxes. Because THAT actually is the only thing that matters.

THIS does not mean we should cheerlead for either side. THAT is fucking useless because for all our rethoric posturing...NOTHING can actually stop a prolonged imperialist intervention. Neither Gadaffi nor the rebels will accomplish that and certainly not with our rethoric and marginalised support.

This means we should recognize that the current conflict stopped being about them for the time being. That the media is hopelessly biassed and that NOBODY IN THIS FUCKING PLACE has any real idea what the hell is going on there and gthat we are all being played or let ourselves be played by lack of FUCKING information.

The only conclusion is that we provide information about BOTH sides of the fucking isle. Wether this is positive or negative.

The rebels currntly are a bunch of fucking imperialist stooges with monarchists and racists and fucking reactionaries running the show.

Gadaffi is currently the oppressed burgeoisie faction. So boo fucking hoo....its burgeoisie non the less. He is a depraved sell out, non-socialist, imperialist who though nothing of repressing the fucking proletariat we are supposed to be voicing for.

So our job is to find the information which gives an actual accurate report about what is happening and voice our support against the intervention of NATO. Stop the involvement of our countries. And actually recognize that NEITHER faction is anything near what we are supposed to cheerlead over.

Do yo really think it matters one iota? Do you really think that NATO is going to give a fuck about how many soldiers of theirs get killed? Or how much money its going to cost them? Do you really think that Gaddaffi is going to beat the imperialist might? Or that the rebels are going to bring anything else than the same? Because before NATO are gone our little petty squabbeling is purely accademic and means jack-shit.

And after THAT is accomplished or after we have found that no matter how we are going to cut it a reactionary faction has and is ultimately going to win...we are going to start to worry and bicker over how we are going to overthrow THAT fucking nightmare. Y'all are selling the hide beforte we have shot the bear...hell before we have even seen the fucking bear.

STOP THE FUCKING INSANE THREADS ABOUT "TOLD YOU SO...." FROM EITHER SIDE...

Post some info, post news but do so for the news value. For the accuracy. Stop posting it to prove your burgeoisie faction is better than the other.

For that is only accomplishing that we do NOT get out in the streets united against and fight togethre against our countries imperialist aspiration.

God...jezus..christ...

WTF? people?

Imposter Marxist

29th April 2011, 17:04

Everytime I see a "liberal" leftist talking about "NOT TAKING SIDES" or supporting the rebels it always makes this picture EXPLODE into the forefront of my mind.
http://chzmemeafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/naughty-memes-i-bet-its-spider-man-comics.jpg

Look, anarchists. if you were wishing for the forces of the USSR to win in the Battle of Stalingrad, then you were, while opposing nazism, supporting Joseph Stalin. It may be temporary, and it may be just in that situation, but thats what it was.

You may not agree with Stalin. You may HATE Stalin. Although, you want to see the Nazi's defeated, and repeled, thus you "cheered" for the red army. Correct? You can't wavy on this shit and say "I support the workers on both sides" while they're shooting at each other. Thats not an opinon. You have to pick an army, a side, and unfortunatly for you, a regime.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 17:10

What I am saying is imperialism is intrinsic to capitalism and latent if not manifest in every part of the world. It is far from being confined to "western imperialism" as that dreary claque of PSL drones are constantly wittering on about it. Libya's own imperialist aspirations are evidenced by the data I provided and are undeniable.

The answer is not to support one bunch of thieving capitalist bastards in their struggles against another but to say loudly and clearly a plague on both your houses. Do I support the the billionaire scumbag Gaddafi who authorises the shooting down of unarmed working class protestors? Hell no! Do I support the intervention of western powers with their sick hypocritcal profession of concern for civilians? Of course not.

Why cannot people get it through their heads that you dont have to take sides on this issue. The scumbag Gaddafi must go but to involve other capitalist states in the removal of his regime is a folly that the rebels may yet live to regret. But then the "rebels" are not some monolithic group and their goals are decidedly mixed

Not taking a side doesn't change the reality on the ground.

It being a matter of principle is being naive.

dernier combat

29th April 2011, 17:14

Not taking a side doesn't change the reality on the ground.

It being a matter of principle is being naive.
You want principle? Here's a principle of Lenin's very own that you seem to ignore whenever it suits you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#Revolutionary_Defeatism

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 17:27

You want principle? Here's a principle of Lenin's very own that you seem to ignore whenever it suits you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#Revolutionary_Defeatism

God, what fucking liberal opportunist that Lenin is. He even supported an uprising in Ireland that contained all sorts of reactionary elements, AND took money from German imperialism to fight against his own dictatorship. Liberal opportunist nothing, Lenin was a fucking imperialist stooge!

Oh, wait.

Kassad

29th April 2011, 17:29

The point is, that Qaddafi is not an anti-imperialist, and has not been one for a long time. As Janet says, "What have you done for me lately?" It's been a generation since Qaddafi could be called progressive (and he was never revolutionary).

The other point is that imperialism is NOT big countries beating up on little countries. That's militarism, which we must oppose. Imperialism is the global capitalist class, of which Qaddafi is a part, exploiting the global proletariat. The capitalists of the West have more in common with Qaddafi than the MLs of the West have with Qaddafi. It's Brand A having a dispute with Brand B, and the workers of both companies getting fucked.

The rev left is split between two camps, one which supports a member of the imperialist class, Qaddafi, and one which supports a section of the people of Libya, which is being aided by other members of the imperialist class.

That doesn't make Qaddafi an imperialist puppet like Mubarak. Those who were taking a principled stand against imperialism, like the PSL and other organizations, acknowledged the concessions Qaddafi has made to imperialism. That doesn't provide justification for supporting an opposition that is clearly racist and pro-intervention. There's a good chance that Qaddafi may be replaced by an American puppet in the near future and when the lives of Libyans are thrown into turmoil just like the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, the pseudo-revolutionary organizations that were cheerleaders for imperialism will have no foot to stand on.

The Red Next Door

29th April 2011, 17:39

God, what fucking liberal opportunist that Lenin is. He even supported an uprising in Ireland that contained all sorts of reactionary elements, AND took money from German imperialism to fight against his own dictatorship. Liberal opportunist nothing, Lenin was a fucking imperialist stooge!

Oh, wait.

Different People. Very Different people.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 17:43

That doesn't make Qaddafi an imperialist puppet like Mubarak.

I didn't write puppet, I wrote imperialist. He's exporting capital from his country to exploit the workers of another. That's what imperialism is. Qaddafi is part of the global capitalist class, aka, the imperialists.

Look at it this way, every so often, the state will take down a capitalist or corporation that threatens the system by doing something criminal, by being stupid, or by being spectacularly successful to the point that it threatens to upset the whole apple cart. We don't support those capitalists who fall victim to other capitalists. Neither should we support imperialists who are the enemy of our imperial masters.

We should, absolutely oppose the militarism of our imperialists, which has the practical effect of supporting their enemy. But our job is not to support Qaddafi. Our job is to fight our masters, as Lenin puts it, revolutionary defeatism. But at the same time, we need to point out that Qaddafi is a reactionary, that it has been a generation since he's been a progressive, that he himself is an imperialist AND we need to tell the whole truth about the Libyan rebels, both the bad and the rest.

The biggest problem I've had with the pro-Qaddafi left is that they've misrepresented both Qaddafi and the rebels, making both into one dimensional caricatures of themselves, rather than the troubling multi-faceted, dialectical reality of both.

In the end, with all the information, I still sympathize with the rebels because, as Mao said, it's right to rebel against reactionaries, and Qaddafi is a reactionary.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 17:53

The biggest problem I've had with the pro-Qaddafi left is that they've misrepresented both Qaddafi and the rebels, making both into one dimensional caricatures of themselves, rather than the troubling multi-faceted, dialectical reality of both.

There is no mis-characterization of the rebels or what the movement is now.

Being mad at the pro-Gaddafi crowd is one but sympathies with the rebellion is not something I would recommend doing.

The rebels supposed representatives are for more reactionary than Gaddafi.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 17:58

In the end, with all the information, I still sympathize with the rebels because, as Mao said, it's right to rebel against reactionaries, and Qaddafi is a reactionary.

In the end, with all the information, I still sympathize with Gaddafi, because as Mao said, it's right to rebel against reactionaries, and the rebel movement that gained ground in Benghazi are reactionaries.

^ I mean this is the thought process of people on the other side.

And you have to understand that it comes down to both sides thinking that either the rebel movement or Gaddafi are more reactionary.

Personally, I happen to think the rebel movement is largely reactionary yet harbor no illusions about Gaddafi being the answer to the working class's grievances.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 17:59

PhoenixAsh

29th April 2011, 18:00

Look, anarchists. if you were wishing for the forces of the USSR to win in the Battle of Stalingrad, then you were, while opposing nazism, supporting Joseph Stalin. It may be temporary, and it may be just in that situation, but thats what it was.

You may not agree with Stalin. You may HATE Stalin. Although, you want to see the Nazi's defeated, and repeled, thus you "cheered" for the red army. Correct? You can't wavy on this shit and say "I support the workers on both sides" while they're shooting at each other. Thats not an opinon. You have to pick an army, a side, and unfortunatly for you, a regime.

Yeah...thats a really faulty conslusion right there...

Because its very fucking possible to cheerlead for the specific effort of the ones, soldiers and citizens, fighting against and winning victory over the nazi's without actually cheerleading for the regime.

So NO...you do not cheerlead the regime. You cheerlead the specific victories. And that means you do NOT take sides and sully your ideology by siding with burgeosie and lending your voice to burgeoisie factions.

But we are taking sides...because for your nice little example there does not featured a third power...like everybody here seems to so obviously miss in the pressent situation.

NATO.

And tahts the side I, because I do not pretend to speak for anybody here on the board but myself unless otherwise stated, oppose.

And if that means to be happy when GAdaffi shoots down a plane...then yes I am. But that is a far cry from cheerleading for the imperialist capitalist fucker and his fucked up non socialist regime and apologizing or forgetting the fact that he is one of the enemies.

So no...your conclusion is wrong.

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 18:02

I swear. Some of you people are getting more idiotic by the hour.

your open support for a dictator (even before NATO came into the equation) along the lines of some warped concept of anti-imperialism comes much closer to 'cheerleading' than anything the rest of us have said.

Don't bother, he's an anti-imperialist now due to the virtue of the fact that NATO is attacking Libya. Never mind that the Marcyites defended him just as persistently before that.

Except you are totally oblivious of our line on Gaddafi then. We openly called out that he conceited to the West, got cozy with the Italian bourgeoisie and opened Libya up to BP. He was not a puppet though. He was still a little nationalistic for Washington's taste but they would've been content with things the way that they were. We opposed imperialist intervention from the get-go because we, like most sane Leftists, realized that something wasn't right and the characteristics of this "rebellion" wasn't like those in Egypt or Tunisia. It turns out we were right in that regard because weeks later, bombs were being dropped on Libyan soil.

Acknowledging the contradictions proposed has turned the Gaddafi forces into the anti-imperialist force. Specifically on the grounds that they are literally fighting imperialism while your privileged asses are sitting behind a goddamn computer screen. We don't have any illusions that the '69 revolution was a Socialist revolution. We don't have any illusions that Gaddafi is going to bring Socialism to Libya. He is a popular leader in a bourgeois nationalist regime. I've said this for months now.

I'm talking to a goddamn Trotskyist about unconditionally opposing imperialism. Its amazing that I actually have to do this.

I pretty much agree with what psycho said, though:

Psycho also said that he didn't give a fuck if France dropped bombs on Libya a month ago. You agree with that as well? Someone with so blatant anti-working class and pro-imperialist positions has not place on this forum.

The fact that some elements of the Libyan rebels have been bad elements has never been denied. What "your" side has consistently failed to deal with is the wing of the Libyan rebels that opposed NATO intervention, that did not engage in lynchings, that captured and jailed British troops, etc. It was always a mixed bag, but it was always portrayed as a homogenous, pro-Western, reactionary mass. Look at the Flag! Look at the same picture of the guy with a picture of King Idris! Look at the flags again! and so on.

It was dishonest and beneath us as communists.

You simply live in a dream world where you think you can have it both ways.

As a communist, THIS is dishonest and embarrassing for you. No "wing" of the rebels has come out against the lynchings. They merely exist only in your imagination.

Get real, man.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 18:03

Personally, I happen to think the rebel movement is largely reactionary.

This is probably the case ... now. We really can't know, because no one has bothered to survey the rebels. The claimed certainty by some disturbs me.

The biggest problem is this is being used by some to try and write others out of the communist movement (such as it is). On a practical level, both sides are united on their opposition to Western militarism. Do we have to agree as to why in order to work together build opposition to the NATO assault? Does this have to be a fucking religion, where we all agree on everything, before we can work together?

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 18:03

The fact that some elements of the Libyan rebels have been bad elements has never been denied. What "your" side has consistently failed to deal with is the wing of the Libyan rebels that opposed NATO intervention, that did not engage in lynchings, that captured and jailed British troops, etc. It was always a mixed bag, but it was always portrayed as a homogenous, pro-Western, reactionary mass. Look at the Flag! Look at the same picture of the guy with a picture of King Idris! Look at the flags again! and so on.

It was dishonest and beneath us as communists.

The point is the elements in which have took it upon themselves to hijack the movement and bring about a NATO hailstorm on Libya. Not to mention claiming to be the only legitimate authority on the matters and inviting Western diplomats for political and economic support.

There is also an element of hard reactionary right religious extremists that have infiltrated the group.

How much more mixed do you have to be to be complex enough not to criticize?

Neo-liberals, monarchists, Islamic extremists, NATO > small dedicated real rebel workers?

No, again, there is NO mis-characterization of the rebel movement here.

Whatever legitimate movement there may have been has been swallowed up by the opportunists which chose to invite NATO into the fray after they were beaten in some of the earlier scrimmages.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 18:08

No "wing" of the rebels has come out against the lynchings. They merely exist only in your imagination.

This is a strawman, and typical of the dishonesty of the pro-imperialist Qaddafi-ites. Since they cannot discuss or debate honestly, they have to invent things others are claiming.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 18:09

Psycho also said that he didn't give a fuck if France dropped bombs on Libya a month ago. You agree with that as well? Someone with so blatant anti-working class and pro-imperialist positions has not place on this forum.

Did he really say that? :(

Damn, that reminds me of when Norman Geras, a supposed Marxist scholar in the UK, said that he was happy that Saddam was ousted and then he didn't care if it was done by US and UK guns.

He also said that anyone who thinks Iraq is better off without Saddam or anyone who thinks that Saddam was a bad man, should thank the US Marines because there would've been no other way for him to have been ousted.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 18:10

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 18:12

The point is the elements in which have took it upon themselves to hijack the movement and bring about a NATO hailstorm on Libya. Not to mention claiming to be the only legitimate authority on the matters and inviting Western diplomats for political and economic support.

There is also an element of hard reactionary right religious extremists that have infiltrated the group.

How much more mixed do you have to be to be complex enough not to criticize?

Neo-liberals, monarchists, Islamic extremists, NATO > small dedicated real rebel workers?

No, again, there is NO mis-characterization of the rebel movement here.

Whatever legitimate movement there may have been has been swallowed up by the opportunists which chose to invite NATO into the fray after they were beaten in some of the earlier scrimmages.

But events after the fact don't legitimize mischaracterizations before the fact. The pro-Qaddafi-imperialism faction never said, while the Libyan rebels are a heterogeneous mix, with legitimate grievances, they will be co-opted by Western imperialism, the most reactionary elements will rise to the top, etc. I did write such a thing, and the Pro-Qaddafi-imperialism crowd ridiculed me for it.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 18:13

The lynchings or the part about no spokesman for the rebels coming out against the lynchings?

The strawman is the part where I claimed anything about any part of the rebellion coming out against the lynchings and only it exists in my imagination. I never did any such thing.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 18:15

But events after the fact don't legitimize mischaracterizations before the fact. The pro-Qaddafi-imperialism faction never said, while the Libyan rebels are a heterogeneous mix, with legitimate grievances, they will be co-opted by Western imperialism, the most reactionary elements will rise to the top, etc. I did write such a thing, and the Pro-Qaddafi-imperialism crowd ridiculed me for it.

Well I was writing such a thing and didn't receive any criticism.

It was obvious that was going to happen.

At the same time though, it seems like large parts of the unarmed rebellion were segments left out by Gaddafi's regime.

Some are poor working class, but also a lot were businessmen, Western intellectuals, professionals, pre-professional college students in Engineering, Law and Medicine, etc.

People who think that a liberal democracy and free market capitalism will bring them more prosperity.

Not to diminish their legitimate concerns about Gaddafi's bureaucratic nationalist state, but that the movement was also grounded in wanting liberal democracy.

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 18:18

This is a strawman, and typical of the dishonesty of the pro-imperialist Qaddafi-ites. Since they cannot discuss or debate honestly, they have to invent things others are claiming.

Wow. You really are an idiot. I don't have to invent a thing. You posted enough.

You actually think that there is actually an anti-lynching "wing" of the rebels?

:laugh:

You sympathize with the rebels based on one Mao quote! :lol:

Do you even see how idiotic and infantile you sound right now? This should be a running joke on this forum. I'll have to catalog these few posts to post when you embarrass yourself again on here.

And yes. I'm totally trolling right now and I don't really care. This is hilarious.

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 18:21

The strawman is the part where I claimed anything about any part of the rebellion coming out against the lynchings and only it exists in my imagination. I never did any such thing.

Claim something insanely idiotic that doesn't even remotely exist and cannot be proven just because you want to have your cake and eat it too!

:laugh:

You are one silly man, Chegitz. Silly, silly man.

Sasha

29th April 2011, 18:22

Look, anarchists. if you were wishing for the forces of the USSR to win in the Battle of Stalingrad, then you were, while opposing nazism, supporting Joseph Stalin. It may be temporary, and it may be just in that situation, but thats what it was.

You may not agree with Stalin. You may HATE Stalin. Although, you want to see the Nazi's defeated, and repeled, thus you "cheered" for the red army. Correct? You can't wavy on this shit and say "I support the workers on both sides" while they're shooting at each other. Thats not an opinon. You have to pick an army, a side, and unfortunatly for you, a regime.

yes, in the situation of stalingrad this would be for me (maybe some left-coms would still disagree) indeed the case.
your whole post sinks trough its hooves though with the fact that the situation in libya has nothing, nothing in common with stalingrad, if anything it is would be more similar, in some aspects even remarkably similar to Kronstad.
the proletariat demands that what was promised them, bread and freedom, and is met by brutal oppression. Soldiers refuse to shoot their fellow citizens and acknowledge their just demands and an (armed) rebellion is born. Regime loyal troops start an massacre and the state-authoritarians keep shouting "whites!! whites!!! whites!!" from the sidelines to egg them on....

Sasha

29th April 2011, 18:28

Did he really say that? :(

offcourse not, i said that in the situation that arose when NATO got involved and this became an war between bourgeois vs bourgeois where no worker would ever benefit from i hoped that the side who didn't promised "rivers of blood", "going from door to door" and "killing the roaches" would get it over with and would drop an bomb on Gaddaffi instead of innocent libyans.
but dont let the facts get in the way of your endless parade of strawmans and fallacy's.

RadioRaheem84

29th April 2011, 18:35

As much as I want to give the rebellion the benefit of the doubt in it's origins, I think I remember reading how it turned out that they were armed.

I think the real story is probably somewhere in the middle where the opportunist elements were already waiting to strike at soon as a protest was under way.

Then again, not to disparage the people protesting Gaddafi's nationalist state bureaucratic regime but a huge swathe of the protesters seemed to be professional or pre-professional types that benefited from the neo-liberal reforms but wish for all out liberal reform Western style.

The other half probably protested because of the neo-liberal reforms and the toll it took on the people.

Tommy4ever

29th April 2011, 19:22

Look, anarchists. if you were wishing for the forces of the USSR to win in the Battle of Stalingrad, then you were, while opposing nazism, supporting Joseph Stalin. It may be temporary, and it may be just in that situation, but thats what it was.

You may not agree with Stalin. You may HATE Stalin. Although, you want to see the Nazi's defeated, and repeled, thus you "cheered" for the red army. Correct? You can't wavy on this shit and say "I support the workers on both sides" while they're shooting at each other. Thats not an opinon. You have to pick an army, a side, and unfortunatly for you, a regime.

But your metaphor is pretty flawed because in this situation we don't view Gadaffi as the Soviet Union.

A better analogy for those of us who haven't become Gadaffi's cheerleaders view the situation would be this:

The Nazis are invading Poland. Poland isn't very nice, its anti-communist and authoritarians, its even aligned with the Western Imperialists. But better fucking Poland than the Nazis.

I guess this is a situation where you have to look at the situation and choose who you think is worse. I don't give a fuck that the rebels are supported by the West - they are definately better than Gadaffi.

I don't like either side at all. I can just see that one seems considerably worse than the other.

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 21:17

Wow. You really are an idiot. I don't have to invent a thing. You posted enough.

You actually think that there is actually an anti-lynching "wing" of the rebels?

You got a quote from me to support this lie of yours?

Kassad

29th April 2011, 21:20

The fact that some elements of the Libyan rebels have been bad elements has never been denied. What "your" side has consistently failed to deal with is the wing of the Libyan rebels that opposed NATO intervention, that did not engage in lynchings, that captured and jailed British troops, etc. It was always a mixed bag, but it was always portrayed as a homogenous, pro-Western, reactionary mass. Look at the Flag! Look at the same picture of the guy with a picture of King Idris! Look at the flags again! and so on.

It was dishonest and beneath us as communists.

Of course it's not a homogenous movement. However, it appears that there isn't a revolutionary socialist alternative for Libya at the present time and much of the opposition has hailed U.S. military intervention.

http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/gp3_small_article/libya-diplomacy-gaddafi-rebels-2011-4-22.jpg

The sign reads "United States of America: You have a new ally in North Africa". The banner has been hoisted by the Libyan opposition, who has also been noted as waving the flag of the monarchy. What good is going to come out of supporting this? Why would we call for the overthrow of Qaddafi by rabidly pro-imperialist forces when we know that the future will hold nothing beneficial for the people of Libya under the grip of military occupation. Or is this just another example of blindly hailing "people's movements" wherever they arise with little to no class analysis?

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 21:27

You got a quote from me to support this lie of yours?

I can't believe that I have to point this out to you.

What "your" side has consistently failed to deal with is the wing of the Libyan rebels that opposed NATO intervention, that did not engage in lynchings,

The rebels "opposed" NATO intervention for a few days and then realized that their forces were composed of these types (http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1894/36150056.jpg) and then called the West in. And like I said, there were no anti-lynching sects of the rebels. No faction came out in denouncing. No "wing" voiced opposition to that. Therefore, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

This is what you, for some reason, are unable to understand.

They shouldn't be sympathized and they shouldn't be looked at with rose colored glasses. They should be opposed because they, themselves, are united in aiding imperialism in Libya.

If you still fail to grasp this, there is no hope for you. You might as well stop embarrass yourself and join the CPUSA because that's how "Communist" you really are.

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 21:29

Or is this just another example of blindly hailing "people's movements" wherever they arise with little to no class analysis?

I bet these guys hailed the Taliban's overthrow of the PDPA in Afghanistan as a "people's movement."

Kassad

29th April 2011, 21:30

I bet these guys hailed the Taliban's overthrow of the PDPA in Afghanistan as a "people's movement."

Basically. They refer to the Soviet intervention as "social-imperialist", which is the most laughable and unscientific analysis of the situation possible.

Threetune

29th April 2011, 21:33

Tommy4ever

29th April 2011, 21:39

Wow Kassad! Are you seriously trying to tell me that these people are trying to suck up to a power that is actively helping them wage a war? That doesn't sound reasonable at all!

Death to the Imperialist Collaborators!

:/

chegitz guevara

29th April 2011, 21:43

I can't believe that I have to point this out to you.

It's possible English isn't your first language, and so I won't mock you for not understanding the concept of a comma, and how it separates phrases such as "opposed NATO intervention" and "that did not engage in lynchings."

It is also possible that you understand that "did not engage in lynchings" means opposes or "anti-lynching," but really, that's not how English works. Not engaging in simply means, they didn't do it. Some did, some didn't.

You are a perfect example of this dishonest form of debate.

Threetune

29th April 2011, 22:20

It's possible English isn't your first language, and so I won't mock you for not understanding the concept of a comma, and how it separates phrases such as "opposed NATO intervention" and "that did not engage in lynchings."

It is also possible that you understand that "did not engage in lynchings" means opposes or "anti-lynching," but really, that's not how English works. Not engaging in simply means, they didn't do it. Some did, some didn't.

You are a perfect example of this dishonest form of debate.

“Some did, some didn't.”??? Go on, tell us who did and who didn’t do the Lynching. You don’t know do you? You have just made up your phantom legion of progressive ‘left’/liberal rebs haven’t you?
The youth in Bengasi demonstrating against you reactionary rebs pals are the progressives. You are simply trying to find your way back into the ‘left’ camp after exposing yourself as a complete reactionary. Well outed!

robbo203

29th April 2011, 23:03

Not taking a side doesn't change the reality on the ground.

It being a matter of principle is being naive.

It might or might not make change the reality on the ground but at least you havent sold your soul to the highest capitalist bidder and your communist principles down the river. At least you havent helped to reinforce capitalism and capitalist ideolgy

You talk about not changing reality on the ground and not taking a side being naive. Really? So taking a side is going to make a difference then , eh? Talk about naive! You and a few fellow disgrunteld lefties down at the pub are going to tip the balance in this epic struggle between libyan imperialism and western imperialism. Ha!

The truth of the matter is it makes no fucking difference what your position is as far as this event is concerned so you might just as well be a principled communist and not take sides

Threetune

29th April 2011, 23:08

It's possible English isn't your first language, and so I won't mock you for not understanding the concept of a comma, and how it separates phrases such as "opposed NATO intervention" and "that did not engage in lynchings."

It is also possible that you understand that "did not engage in lynchings" means opposes or "anti-lynching," but really, that's not how English works. Not engaging in simply means, they didn't do it. Some did, some didn't.

You are a perfect example of this dishonest form of debate.

English is my first language and even though I have had difficulty with reading and writing all my life I know a reactionary twat like you by what you DON’T say. You'r busted, you and your phantom ‘left’ rebs. as if

Threetune

29th April 2011, 23:17

It might or might not make change the reality on the ground but at least you havent sold your soul to the highest capitalist bidder and your communist principles down the river. At least you havent helped to reinforce capitalism and capitalist ideolgy

You talk about not changing reality on the ground and not taking a side being naive. Really? So taking a side is going to make a difference then , eh? Talk about naive! You and a few fellow disgrunteld lefties down at the pub are going to tip the balance in this epic struggle between libyan imperialism and western imperialism. Ha!

The truth of the matter is it makes no fucking difference what your position is as far as this event is concerned so you might just as well be a principled communist and not take sides

Be a "principled communist" and work for the defeat of imperialism at home.

Threetune

29th April 2011, 23:28

Sir Comradical

29th April 2011, 23:32

I bet these guys hailed the Taliban's overthrow of the PDPA in Afghanistan as a "people's movement."

Actually they did. Same with the "people's movements" in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Soldier of life

29th April 2011, 23:39

but you do get beheaded if you are black in Benghazi.

try again.

What incident you referring to here?

Kassad

29th April 2011, 23:40

What incident you referring to here?

The multiple reports of the lynching and/or beheadings of Black people and Qaddafi supporters in Libya. Have you been paying attention at all?

robbo203

29th April 2011, 23:48

Be a "principled communist" and work for the defeat of imperialism at home.

All thse so called anti-imperialists prattle on is about "imperialism". Imperialism is not the problem. Its capitalism. Imperialism is only the symptom. It is intrinsic to capitalism and it exiss everywhere that capitalism does. Libya is an imperialist state and not just latently so but manifestly as I demonstrated earlier. Im dammed if I am going to fight western imperialism so that Libyan imperialism can suceed. No principled communist would

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 23:50

It's possible English isn't your first language, and so I won't mock you for not understanding the concept of a comma, and how it separates phrases such as "opposed NATO intervention" and "that did not engage in lynchings."

This is a predictable response for someone with no room to stand. You've already embarrassed yourself here and I really don't care about the usage of a comma on a message board. Stick to the topic at hand. Kthanx.

It is also possible that you understand that "did not engage in lynchings" means opposes or "anti-lynching," but really, that's not how English works. Not engaging in simply means, they didn't do it. Some did, some didn't.

Regardless, as a political entity, your sympathies lie with the rebels, period. I'm being realistic. Sure, some rebels didn't directly engage in the mass killing of migrant workers, some captured it on their cell phones and they all did nothing to stop it. In fact, many cheered the acts on as you can see with the videos that have been posted on this forum over the last two months. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, this is a fact.

You are a perfect example of this dishonest form of debate.

And you are a perfect example of a non-Communist.

I wouldn't in the least be surprised if you were one among many of your Kasama pals trying to rally support for the "revolutionaries" in Benghazi a month ago. :lol:

It seems that the fantasy never really faded away. Keep dreaming, Chegitz.

PhoenixAsh

30th April 2011, 00:13

Go on then Chegitz, you smart ass, step up and tell us after your reserch what proportion of the rebs are not reactionary, If any at all. How many of them are there who are not reactionary? Where are they? What positions do they hold in the reb movement as a whole? What none reactionary things are they saying in their accessable comunications. What are they doing “in practice” about countering the reactionaries? Evidence please.

What all of us are missing is the fact that whatever media comes out of Libya is immensely biased to either side or fragmented...to make briad sweeping generalisations to either side.

Just like the first reported mass slaughters probably did not occur it is very likely that all the immages you see off all the cheerleading rebels might be a one sides report as well. Or do you think the imperialist media is going to show us the reports about the rebels who opposed intervention (which were definately there at the start of the civil war because they were shown then)??

Just like Gadaffi stated everybody was a drug crazed Al Qaida operative was untrue....most of the reports by the goverment will be heavilly if not totally biased propaganda.

PhoenixAsh

30th April 2011, 00:21

I can't believe that I have to point this out to you.

The rebels "opposed" NATO intervention for a few days and then realized that their forces were composed of these types (http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1894/36150056.jpg) and then called the West in. And like I said, there were no anti-lynching sects of the rebels. No faction came out in denouncing. No "wing" voiced opposition to that. Therefore, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

This is what you, for some reason, are unable to understand.

They shouldn't be sympathized and they shouldn't be looked at with rose colored glasses. They should be opposed because they, themselves, are united in aiding imperialism in Libya.

If you still fail to grasp this, there is no hope for you. You might as well stop embarrass yourself and join the CPUSA because that's how "Communist" you really are.

I can't believe that I have to point this out to you.

But on one side " your side" complains about the complete and utter bias in the media and on the other side they are going to rely on the very same media reports as being totally true when it suits the needs.

Because the west denied the accusations in their reports and tried to sweep them under the rug as much as possible and downplayed them. So do you honestly think for one second that this imperialist propaganda channel is going to show anything from rebels who denounce such activities and thereby basically admitting these things happened?

This is an inconsistancy you seriously have to resolve.

Now those lynchings happened. On larger scale than is currently though IMO. And they are really fucking bad. But does this mean you have to automatically turn to the other side for support...a regime who systematically repressed and abused the rights of so fucking many for so long and executed and tortured without trial so many people? Because that also happened. And that was also really fucking bad. and nobody in the Gadaffi camp denounced those....and those who did are now fighting on the other side.

Chambered Word

30th April 2011, 05:41

Except you are totally oblivious of our line on Gaddafi then. We openly called out that he conceited to the West, got cozy with the Italian bourgeoisie and opened Libya up to BP. He was not a puppet though. He was still a little nationalistic for Washington's taste but they would've been content with things the way that they were. We opposed imperialist intervention from the get-go because we, like most sane Leftists, realized that something wasn't right and the characteristics of this "rebellion" wasn't like those in Egypt or Tunisia. It turns out we were right in that regard because weeks later, bombs were being dropped on Libyan soil.

Wow, so did Socialist Alternative. Do you want a cookie?

Acknowledging the contradictions proposed has turned the Gaddafi forces into the anti-imperialist force. Specifically on the grounds that they are literally fighting imperialism while your privileged asses are sitting behind a goddamn computer screen. We don't have any illusions that the '69 revolution was a Socialist revolution. We don't have any illusions that Gaddafi is going to bring Socialism to Libya. He is a popular leader in a bourgeois nationalist regime. I've said this for months now.

Yes, obviously I, as a working class person living in Australia, am so much more priveliged than Gaddafi's cronies. :laugh: You obviously do have illusions that the '69 coup was a revolution though, and illusions that somehow Gaddafi's regime has been progressive:

The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.

Psycho also said that he didn't give a fuck if France dropped bombs on Libya a month ago. You agree with that as well? Someone with so blatant anti-working class and pro-imperialist positions has not place on this forum.

Cool strawman. I made it obvious what statements of psycho's I was agreeing with by, you know, quoting them in my post.

“Some did, some didn't.”??? Go on, tell us who did and who didn’t do the Lynching. You don’t know do you? You have just made up your phantom legion of progressive ‘left’/liberal rebs haven’t you?
The youth in Bengasi demonstrating against you reactionary rebs pals are the progressives. You are simply trying to find your way back into the ‘left’ camp after exposing yourself as a complete reactionary. Well outed!

If you don't have anything even slightly useful to contribute, go away.

Threetune

30th April 2011, 12:01

If you don't have anything even slightly useful to contribute, go away.

Having problems are you?
If you could find evidence of “progressive” rebs you would have produced it by now. It is pure invention to get you of the hook. Stand up your story of “progressive” rebs or admit you are wrong. That shouldn’t be to difficult.

dernier combat

30th April 2011, 13:14

Or is this just another example of blindly hailing "people's movements" wherever they arise with little to no class analysis?
I can't speak entirely for others, but I was always skeptical about the class nature and politics of the rebels (especially given the lack of communist influence in Libya). While it was always obvious that it was never a socialist movement (and nor would it ever develop in to one), it would be ridiculous to ignore the economic conditions (such as high unemployment [a rate of approx. 21%]) which (combined with the influence of other protests across the Arab world, which were mainly concerned with unemployment, poverty and civil liberties) sparked the early days of protests in Libya, and from that we can deduce the probable initial class composition of the opposition. As for protestors flying flags of King Idris' monarchy even in the early days of the protests, a poster in one of the earliest revleft threads about the Libyan situation brought forward the possibility that some protestors flew it simply as a generic symbol of opposition to Qadaffi (which is probable, given the lack of any widespread organized opposition movement in Libya with a sizable supporter base, which would have then provided appropriate symbolism) and not as explicit support for the monarchy. The entry of clear reactionaries into the general opposition movement shortly after the initial protests was purely opportunistic. They saw an increasingly organized and influential opposition movement, joined it and turned it into a vehicle for their cause. What's going down in Libya at this moment - and indeed the rest of the Middle East and north Africa - is, as you can see, a very dynamic situation.

So no, it's not an example of "blindly hailing a "peoples' movement" with little to no class analysis". That's simply an incorrect assertion.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 16:52

So no, it's not an example of "blindly hailing a "peoples' movement" with little to no class analysis". That's simply an incorrect assertion.

No but it's pretty damn close, considering the way people ignore what you just described above and much more that you missed, in favor of being principled against Gaddafi.

I wouldn't even say that the rebellion movement was that opportunist to hijack a genuine revolution, if a huge portion of it was led by businessman, professionals and pre-professionals wanting more neo-libera reforms so they can benefit from it rather than the state national bureaucracy Gaddafi rules under.

The rebellion is dynamic. It is complex. Does it still make it worth supporting? No.

Thirsty Crow

30th April 2011, 16:55

The rebellion is dynamic. It is complex. Does it still make it worth supporting? No.
I got a question: why should communists be so obssessed with finding a side to support? Is this a kind of a psychological or political imperative - to formally declare support?
I'm really amazed at this, honestly.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 17:16

I got a question: why should communists be so obssessed with finding a side to support? Is this a kind of a psychological or political imperative - to formally declare support?
I'm really amazed at this, honestly.

I don't blame people not taking a side, necessarily.

I think that it's understandable considering the fucked up situation.

But the pro-rebellion crowd has gone bananas to me.

At this stage I see no redeeming quality about the rebellion and if it was just Gaddafi opposing them, then I would probably not take side as well, but the rebellion has called on NATO and the West to bail them out and they've laid out plans to be the only legitimate authority in post Gaddafi Libya.

That to me needs to be stopped.

Threetune

30th April 2011, 17:55

So no, it's not an example of "blindly hailing a "peoples' movement" with little to no class analysis". That's simply an incorrect assertion.

If it wasn’t serious it would be genuinely funny watching you guy’s performing these verbal gymnastics, wriggling and squirming like naughty children with jam all over your faces.
You hate and “condemn” any and all resistance or opposition to the dominant imperialist centres because it never fits your idealistic (bourgeois democratic) notions of what a revolution should be. But you fall over each other in the scramble to “support” every “oppressed” counterrevolution that imperialism can stunt-up. Some of you think yourselves to be some sort of ‘communists’ but you aren’t.
You are exactly in the tradition of the infantile ‘left’ who Lenin spent his entire life fighting against.
Once again, find us the “progressive” rebs and let us all examine their program.

dernier combat

1st May 2011, 02:16

If it wasn’t serious it would be genuinely funny watching you guy’s performing these verbal gymnastics, wriggling and squirming like naughty children with jam all over your faces.
Guess what you're performing, right now.

You hate and “condemn” any and all resistance or opposition to the dominant imperialist centres because it never fits your idealistic (bourgeois democratic) notions of what a revolution should be.
What? Where the fuck did you get that idea from? How am I, as an anarchist-communist, "bourgeois democratic" in the least?

But you fall over each other in the scramble to “support” every “oppressed” counterrevolution that imperialism can stunt-up.
That's strange. I can't remember giving support for the Libyan opposition. But I'm sure, in your infinite wisdom, that you can quote me explicitly giving support for the rebels.

Some of you think yourselves to be some sort of ‘communists’ but you aren’t.
We want a global, stateless, classless society. How this contradicts your definition of the term is beyond me.

You are exactly in the tradition of the infantile ‘left’ who Lenin spent his entire life fighting against.
All you're doing is throwing around insults and not putting forward any coherent arguments.

Once again, find us the “progressive” rebs and let us all examine their program.
The "progressive" elements of the rebels are not organized as such. As I said, the rebels are a hodge-podge of various anti-Qaddafi elements of Libyan society, and were largely unorganized to begin with. The initial protests often involved members of the working class protesting about - amongst other things - their dire economic situation - at an opportune moment. It's ridiculous to think they would some sort of 5-year plan prepared.

dernier combat

1st May 2011, 02:23

I wouldn't even say that the rebellion movement was that opportunist to hijack a genuine revolution
It wasn't explicitly stated or implied that the initial protests would develop in to a revolution. Libya has very little communist influence and there is little class-consciousness within the working class. I stated myself that the rebellion wasn't socialist and nor would it ever be.

The rebellion is dynamic. It is complex. Does it still make it worth supporting? No.
No, it's not worth supporting. Besides, it was never even implied that the rebellion should be supported simply because of its dynamic character. The dynamic character was simply an observation.

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 06:12

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

NATO just doesn't give a fuck. They just killed Gaddafi's son.

I know he was a bourgoise type but my god NATO is fucking serious about taking out Gaddafi. No compromise until the Council is in charge.

Threetune

1st May 2011, 09:24

The "progressive" elements of the rebels are not organized as such. As I said, the rebels are a hodge-podge of various anti-Qaddafi elements of Libyan society, and were largely unorganized to begin with. The initial protests often involved members of the working class protesting about - amongst other things - their dire economic situation - at an opportune moment. It's ridiculous to think they would some sort of 5-year plan prepared.

We would not need a five year plan. A two week plan would do? An agenda? A statement? A leaflet? Anything from your phantom “progesives” would be fascinating. Magical in fact.

You haven’t got anything have you?

Thirsty Crow

1st May 2011, 10:53

We would not need a five year plan. A two week plan would do? An agenda? A statement? A leaflet? Anything from your phantom “progesives” would be fascinating. Magical in fact.

You haven’t got anything have you?

Man, you're dense as hell. The guy (or girl?) explicitly stated that supporting the rebels is out of the question (as well as that there is no organized "progressive" faction).
Stop trolling.

1st May 2011, 13:46

Chambered Word

1st May 2011, 14:21

Having problems are you?
If you could find evidence of “progressive” rebs you would have produced it by now. It is pure invention to get you of the hook. Stand up your story of “progressive” rebs or admit you are wrong. That shouldn’t be to difficult.

Nobody said anything about 'progressive rebs' you fucking dolt. It should be obvious to anyone who has grown a brain inside their skull that there were many workers who participated in the popular uprising against Gaddafi. Additionally, nothing you have posted in this thread has been intelligent, useful or even worth engaging with.

If it wasn’t serious it would be genuinely funny watching you guy’s performing these verbal gymnastics, wriggling and squirming like naughty children with jam all over your faces.
You hate and “condemn” any and all resistance or opposition to the dominant imperialist centres because it never fits your idealistic (bourgeois democratic) notions of what a revolution should be. But you fall over each other in the scramble to “support” every “oppressed” counterrevolution that imperialism can stunt-up. Some of you think yourselves to be some sort of ‘communists’ but you aren’t.
You are exactly in the tradition of the infantile ‘left’ who Lenin spent his entire life fighting against.
Once again, find us the “progressive” rebs and let us all examine their program.

And you're exactly in the tradition of the social-chauvinists and assorted cheerleaders for the state that Lenin spent his life fighting against. At least the 'infantile left' doesn't want to preserve the existing state and shout down anybody who doesn't support it. You're so many times worse than the anarchists, especially in terms of post quality. With 'Leninists' like you around, Vladimir I. must be spewing.

1st May 2011, 14:35

Nobody said anything about 'progressive rebs' you fucking dolt. It should be obvious to anyone who has grown a brain inside their skull that there were many workers who participated in the popular uprising against Gaddafi. Additionally, nothing you have posted in this thread has been intelligent, useful or even worth engaging with.

Many workers were in the Nazi party as well. What's your point?

Sasha

1st May 2011, 14:47

Many workers were in the Nazi party as well. What's your point?

http://www.smsdesign.net/images/Godwin.jpg

Chambered Word

1st May 2011, 15:08

Many workers were in the Nazi party as well. What's your point?

I'm no longer even going to dignify this, or any other Stalinist horseshit, with an engagement.

You are actually trying to compare a popular uprising to a fascist party. :sleep:

dernier combat

1st May 2011, 15:36

Man, you're dense as hell. The guy (or girl?) explicitly stated that supporting the rebels is out of the question (as well as that there is no organized "progressive" faction).
Stop trolling.
Guy

Threetune

1st May 2011, 19:55

[QUOTE=Chambered Word;2097305]Nobody said anything about 'progressive rebs' you fucking dolt. ... QUOTE]

OK, so you are clearly exasperated. Now, the point of me asking repeatedly for evidence of “progressive” rebs in Libya was to trash the argument which was sneaking into this debate, that there was in fact some “progressive” rebs. In my humble opinion this argument was being sneaked in to justify or as a cover for the incorrect analysis that the ‘original’ coup attempt was in fact a popular revolution, of some kind (Chambered Word for example) when it was nothing of the sort. The presence of workers in every reactionary movement in history tells us nothing about the policies and leadership of the particular movement which in this case is reactionary. And the workers involved in it are sadly on the reactionary side, opening the doors to an imperialist invasion, witch every communist on the planet should be wanting to see defeated.

An entire generation of ‘lefts’ have been schooled in “condemning”, along with the imperialist news media, every expression of anti-imperialism that did not fit their ideal of perfect, democratic, new, bottom-up, non-authoritarian, and many other prefixed revolutions. The climate that such schooling has created has led them to “support” in one way or another, any movement that would fulfil their little bourgeois fantasies of raging “against authority”.

So, I recognise that the ‘lefts’ and you start with “condemning” “on principle” some resistance to imperialism and end up as the propagandists for imperialist invasion by the richest racist states comprising some 500 million against a nation of some 5 million odd.
By the way, I’m content to be “ “fucking dolt”, a fucking communist dolt to be exact.