Saif al-Arab Ghadaffi died during NATO airstrike (??)

[PhoenixAsh]

apparently, maybe:

State television claims.
Rebbels say no.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/05/2011512159645780.html

[The Vegan Marxist]

So it's a lie that his son and three grandchildren were killed? :rolleyes: I doubt it's a lie. Though, if any credible evidence can be brought forth on this claim, then I'll reconsider my position.

[gorillafuck]

I don't see why I would particularly believe either Qaddafi or rebels.

[RedSunRising]

I don't see why I would particularly believe either Qaddafi or rebels.

Exactly.

Why this need to have side? This is as clear as day a fight between two capitalist factions, so outside of opposing Imperialist intervention we shouldnt have a side in this.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have no idea if its a lie or not. I think if it is it would be a very risky one.
So for now I choose to believe it.


Interesting opinion by the rebels though. First thoughts: takes on to know one.

[Threetune]

Exactly.

Why this need to have side? This is as clear as day a fight between two capitalist factions, so outside of opposing Imperialist intervention we shouldnt have a side in this.

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!

[RedSunRising]

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!

So defend a state that outlaws Communists?

[Sir Comradical]

1. The rebels make absurd claims that Gaddafi's troops massacred 10,000 people in Benghazi. Everyone believes it.
2. Confirmed reports surface that Gaddafi's son and grandchildren have been murdered by NATO. Everyone believes the rebels.

Wow.

[Sir Comradical]

So defend a state that outlaws Communists?

Would you support a humanitarian bombing campaign over American cities because of the oppression in the US?

[RedSunRising]

Would you support a humanitarian bombing campaign over American cities because of the oppression in the US?

I made clear that Im against the rebels and Imperialist intervention.

But Im not going to big up Ghaddafi.

[Nolan]

Say Hitler and his twin brother Hitla who seized power in Sweden went to war. Who do we side with?

[Crux]

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!
So when are you shipping off to Libya, soldierboy?

[Ostrinski]

Say Hitler and his twin brother Hitla who seized power in Sweden went to war. Who do we side with?Truly an insightful analogy. A real eye-opener.

[Nolan]

Truly an insightful analogy. A real eye-opener.

First thank!

But really, our options are siding with Islamist-linked coup forces with nothing progressive about them or siding with a man who is no better.

[Luís Henrique]

If I get it correctly, the Gaddafy that was killed would be a Saif-al-Arab al-Gaddafy - not Saif-al-Islam al-Gaddafy, to whom we are more acquainted.

Won't be missed, anyway.

Luís Henrique

[Sir Comradical]

I made clear that Im against the rebels and Imperialist intervention.

But Im not going to big up Ghaddafi.

So you'd want to the rebels and imperialists to lose. Which means wanting Gaddafi to win.

[PhoenixAsh]

I should have known better than to post this thread....

:mellow:

[FreeFocus]

I'm not siding with anyone in the conflict, but it'd be great to see blows dealt to imperialists as well as the Gadhafi regime. I'd also like to throw out there that the rebels are not a monolithic group, there's a lot of competing interests and tendencies among the rebels.

[RedSunRising]

So you'd want to the rebels and imperialists to lose. Which means wanting Gaddafi to win.

Thats pretty simplistic. Ghaddafi is a reactionary capitalist. So are the rebels it seems. What part of a plague on both their houses dont you understand?

But I think Imperialist occupation is the worst case scenario. Ghaddafi was already acting in the interests of western capital and had been busy ripping out anything progressive (the health service being a big thing) in his regime for long time past.

[Sir Comradical]

Thats pretty simplistic. Ghaddafi is a reactionary capitalist. So are the rebels it seems. What part of a plague on both their houses dont you understand?

But I think Imperialist occupation is the worst case scenario. Ghaddafi was already acting in the interests of western capital and had been busy ripping out anything progressive (the health service being a big thing) in his regime for long time past.

Do you think NATO sponsored regime change will make Libya more progressive? Of course not. Imperialism must be defeated - this is a position we all agree with. This does pretty much mean supporting the Libyan government.

[RedSunRising]

Do you think NATO sponsored regime change will make Libya more progressive? Of course not. Imperialism must be defeated - this is a position we all agree with. This does pretty much mean supporting the Libyan government.

Than you might as well say that Left Communists support him.

[Rafiq]

Say Hitler and his twin brother Hitla who seized power in Sweden went to war. Who do we side with?

That's not a good analogy, because how do you know Hitler's twin brother Hitla wasn't a Hoxhaist?

The fact that there twins doesn't prove the political views of Hitla.


Yeah, that's right, I'm a smart ass.

[RadioRaheem84]

Can we get back to the main point?

That NATO, who is supposed to be enforcing a NO FLY ZONE, is really just becoming the rebel's air power. They were targeting Gaddafi but killed his son and three of his grandson, who were all under the age of 12.

NATO just doesn't give a flying fuck who they are bombing.

[dernier combat]

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!
Supporting a minor imperialist power or faction of any reactionary class (ruling or not) against a major imperialist faction of a reactionary class (even as part of a lesser-of-two-evils theory) is inherently anti-communist and counter-productive to the interests of the international working class, as it will only lend itself to the support of the strengthening of the minor imperialist faction of the reactionary class and its pursuit of more exploitative imperialist goals as an inevitable result of its victory.


In fact, supporting any faction of a reactionary class against an imperialist faction of a reactionary class of any sort will only lend itself to the support of the eventual manifestation of latent imperialism (which is an inherent characteristic of all reactionary classes) as an inevitable result of its victory.


--------

I was going to stay out of this thread, but Threetune makes me rage so hard.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Supporting a minor imperialist power or faction of any reactionary class (ruling or not) against a major imperialist faction of a reactionary class (even as part of a lesser-of-two-evils theory) is inherently anti-communist and counter-productive to the interests of the international working class, as it will only lend itself to the support of the strengthening of the minor imperialist faction of the reactionary class and its pursuit of more exploitative imperialist goals as an inevitable result of its victory.


In fact, supporting any faction of a reactionary class against an imperialist faction of a reactionary class of any sort will only lend itself to the support of the eventual manifestation of latent imperialism (which is an inherent characteristic of all reactionary classes) as an inevitable result of its victory.


--------

I was going to stay out of this thread, but Threetune makes me rage so hard.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

[Threetune]

Supporting a minor imperialist power or faction of any reactionary class (ruling or not) against a major imperialist faction of a reactionary class (even as part of a lesser-of-two-evils theory) is inherently anti-communist and counter-productive to the interests of the international working class, as it will only lend itself to the support of the strengthening of the minor imperialist faction of the reactionary class and its pursuit of more exploitative imperialist goals as an inevitable result of its victory.


In fact, supporting any faction of a reactionary class against an imperialist faction of a reactionary class of any sort will only lend itself to the support of the eventual manifestation of latent imperialism (which is an inherent characteristic of all reactionary classes) as an inevitable result of its victory.


--------

I was going to stay out of this thread, but Threetune makes me rage so hard.

Sorry to see you’re upset. I am the only contributor, to the best of my knowledge, who has constantly argued that communists do not have to support anything except communism. However defeating imperialism is what we are for, in every sense. All the other arguments are wrong and boring and going nowhere.

[RadioRaheem84]

Anyways, Obama exaggerated claims about an impending "genocide" in Libya, along with Sarkozy and David Cameron of the UK. Here is their OP-ED in the NY TIMES:


Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html

Their mandate was to enforce a NO FLY ZONE and protect civilians from the fight. NOT SIDE WITH THE REBELS IN THE FIGHT.

NATO has effectively become the air power of the rebels now.

Also, the genocide line was completely exaggerated:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions


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

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

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

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jCuSyTuJPgK8fPXoy78Z3ztGKuAA?docId=CNG.fa5f4 a20283c1d4ac72ec27d4945c84c.12f1


The United States on Wednesday authorized Americans to buy oil from Libyan rebels, easing sanctions to open a stream of funding to opponents of Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi.

http://tweetbeat.com/events/15811-libyan-rebels-receive-funding-from-allies?t2=

CNN reports on UN and other diplomats debating on Libya's future.

NOT THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA but rebel groups along with NATO, UN, US and other officials.

NATO killed Gaddafi's grandsons and son last week. They were deliberately targeting him and missed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hG-sEWuZ9QfF4UJTMN-y1mrZDR1g?docId=CNG.17e3806625fad53ce9d38b16c2d5c8 a2.13c1

Obama orders 25 million dollars of "non-lethal" aid to go to the Libyan rebels.

This is not about a humanitarian mission to help the Libyan civilians.

This is about taking sides in a Civil War and escalating the fighting in order to bring about regime change.

What we have here is blatant imperialism!

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't trust everything the RT news says, considering it's a Putin Loving station but it still offers pretty good coverage of what America likes to hide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ku0rLVdWg

Case in point, the rebellion has been largely Western led from the beginning. There may have been legitimate workers with real grievances but it didn't constitute this vast majority that was going to storm in and oust Gaddafi.

What we have is another Balkans crises and Libya being played like a fiddle.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocvOB6DTvqM&NR=1

CNN's Wolf Blitzer even knows Obama lied. The expressed mission was always regime change.

CIA training rebels.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Meanwhile, in the real world...

ah the real world, the bourgeois world. yep, i forgot that we're meant to compromise our principles of working-class liberation and take sides with warring bourgeois powers.

i am strictly opposed to imperialism, but this doesn't mean i'll be a cheerleader for gadaffi.

[RadioRaheem84]

What are people to do though?

NATO, the US, CIA....all in Libya.

We have an Afghanistan-like '79 scenario.

[chegitz guevara]

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!

Yes, that's exactly true, because you say it is.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

what can they do? whatever the outcome, they're screwed. i think a better question would be what would you, or what would you want to do if you were a libyan?

[Thirsty Crow]

Killing children? Oh, "collaterla casualties". That's really fucked up.

Now, that's all I got to say. Except...

That you got to be an idiot to support an openly anti-communist bourgeois regime. Also, you've got to be an idiot to enagage in such self-aggrandizing acts of offering political support under the pretext of anti-imperialism, when the situation involves to factions of clients of the very same imperialism you supposedly oppose, and the belief that Gaddafi staying in power means "a significant blow to imperialism" (equating imperialism with militarism).

[PhoenixAsh]

Communists are for the defeat of the imperialist invasion, your “opposition” is pacifist and abstention aids imperialism. Again!


Well...seeing as according to you we are all dimwits...please try to explain how this works exactly.

Because, call me crazy, but I simply can not understand how the defeat of imperialism can only be achieved by a burgeoisie imperialist dictator.

Because...you know...just like terrorism, it seems to me, is not a defeatable thing because its a stategy and not a concrete form of government or political ideology. Imperialism is inherrent to capitalism and therefore can simply not be defeated by another imperialist, nor can it be defeated on a battle field if the battle is not to actually overthrow an imperialist government nor all imperialist governments....especially since the victory of either party would mean the victory of an...you know...imperialist.

But hey...thats just me.

[RadioRaheem84]

what can they do? whatever the outcome, they're screwed. i think a better question would be what would you, or what would you want to do if you were a libyan?

I don't know what I would do, but after seeing what the rebellion is all about and an impeding NATO force, I would most likely grudgingly aid the military.

[black magick hustla]

Do you think NATO sponsored regime change will make Libya more progressive? Of course not. Imperialism must be defeated - this is a position we all agree with. This does pretty much mean supporting the Libyan government.
nobody thinks that go away

[Sentinel]

Damn, I actually got a little excited when I saw the title, before realising it wasn't Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. Changed the thread title to make this more clear.

[dernier combat]

Meanwhile, in the real world...
The one in which we abandon communist principles in the support of a minor imperialist power? Yeah, sure, whatever :sleep:

[RedHal]

Damn, I actually got a little excited when I saw the title, before realising it wasn't Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. Changed the thread title to make this more clear.

why don't you add 2 children killed in the bombing too, there's your humantarian intervention all you "leftists" supported

[Sickle-A]

Who exactly is Saif Al-Islam? I hadn't heard about Saif Al-Arab until this attack and didn't know there were two sons so similarly named. Qaddafi can burn in hell but it's pretty badass that he named two of his sons "sword of the Arabs" and "sword of Islam"

[Luís Henrique]

I don't know what I would do, but after seeing what the rebellion is all about and an impeding NATO force, I would most likely grudgingly aid the military.

Cop.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

Cop.

Luís Henrique

Cop out? Like sell out? :confused:

or are you seriously accusing me of being a cop? :cursing:

[RadioRaheem84]

Care to back up your claim, Luis?



LUIS PM
:

Well, it isn't like you weren't calling those who disagree with you pretty horrible things.

Cooperating with a dictator against a rebellion is the work of a cop, not of a revolutionary.


Anyone not supportive of the CIA backed, neo-Liberal led, and NATO assisted rebellion is a cop?

[Luís Henrique]

Care to back up your claim, Luis?




Anyone not supportive of the CIA backed, neo-Liberal led, and NATO assisted rebellion is a cop?

Cooperating with a dictatorship in the suppression of a rebellion is what a cop would do.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

Cooperating with a dictatorship in the suppression of a rebellion is what a cop would do.

Luís Henrique

It seems like you've just completely run out of arguments and just decided to go for a really low blow and call me a cop.

Really fucking low. but then again I cannot blame you, you didn't have any good arguments to begin with.

Tell me though, what is so grand about this rebellion that you deem worthy of support? Especially since it's being led by this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalifa_Belqasim_Haftar#cite_note-3


Quit fucking being childish.


Why hasn't any pro-rebel person posted anything about the rebel movement?

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/29/a_debate_on_us_military_intervention

Vijay Prashad, a cop too? This debate reflects the debate going on right now on Revleft.



So the first thing I would say is we should be very careful when we think of the rebels. We should not confuse all the rebellions across the Arab world and consider them all to be the same. There are some important differences. And secondly, the United States and NATO has its own agenda here. And when one supports an intervention, I think one should be very careful to see whose intervention we are supporting. Is this on behalf of those young people, the workers and others, with whom we have, you know, allegiances and alliances? Is it going to be on their behalf? Or is it going to be on behalf of people like Khalifa Hifter, the colonel who has returned from Vienna, Virginia, to lead the troops in Benghazi? So I would just like to say that my sense of dismay at this intervention is precisely because I think it’s for the bad side of history, and in some ways it is a measure to clamp down on the Arab spring, to take attention away, as well, from Bahrain and other places, rather than a part of the Arab spring.

[Luís Henrique]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/29/a_debate_on_us_military_intervention

Vijay Prashad, a cop too? This debate reflects the debate going on right now on Revleft.

Is he saying that he would cooperate with Gaddafy's police State, as you said you would?

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

why don't you add 2 children killed in the bombing too, there's your humantarian intervention all you "leftists" supported I'm actually 100% against the Nato intervention, but I wouldn't shed any tears for Gaddafis crown prince.


Who exactly is Saif Al-Islam? I hadn't heard about Saif Al-Arab until this attack and didn't know there were two sons so similarly named. Qaddafi can burn in hell but it's pretty badass that he named two of his sons "sword of the Arabs" and "sword of Islam"

Saif al-Islam is the favourite son that Muammar has designated as his heir. When the rebellion broke out he made some entertaining statements in TV ('the rebels are all westerners that are high on ecstacy') and thus became known all over the world.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is he saying that he would cooperate with Gaddafy's police State, as you said you would?

Luís Henrique

The question was posed to me that if I were a Libyan in this situation, I would grudgingly hope that the military would push back NATO and the neo-liberal opportunist Council from taking over Libya.

No matter how legitimate the rebellion may have been, it has been co-opted by NATO and the West. Not to mention that it is supported by a large sector of businessmen, intellectuals, politicos, professionals and even pre-professional college students that feel they may gain from a more neo-liberalized liberal democracy.

The people who would control a post-Gaddafi Libya would not be the people but the opportunist elements which hijacked the rebellion and would make matters less progressive.

All this is what I believe, and you call me a fucking cop?

[Luís Henrique]

All this is what I believe, and you call me a fucking cop?

No, I don't think you have much of a sexual life.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm actually 100% against the Nato intervention, but I wouldn't shed any tears for Gaddafis crown prince.


What about the grandkids? NATO seems to be killing more children than Gaddafi. I believe they hit a hospital too if I am not mistaken. I know you don't support NATO, but look at the context.



Saif al-Islam is the favourite son that Muammar has designated as his heir. When the rebellion broke out he made some entertaining statements in TV ('the rebels are all westerners that are high on ecstacy') and thus became known all over the world.


How about these statements from rebels:

“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.”

“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.”



Significant questions remain about the leaders of the rebellion: who they are, what their political ideas are, and what they would do if Qaddafi fell. At the courthouse on Benghazi’s battered seafront promenade, the de-facto seat of the Libyan revolution, a group of lawyers, doctors, and other professionals have appointed one another to a hodgepodge of “leadership councils.” There is a Benghazi city council, and a Provisional National Council, headed by a bland but apparently honest former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who spends his time in Bayda, a hundred and twenty-five miles away. Other cities have councils of their own. The members are intellectuals, former dissidents, and businesspeople, many of them from old families that were prominent before Qaddafi came to power. What they are not is organized. No one can explain how the Benghazi council works with the National Council. Last week, another shadow government, the Crisis Management Council, was announced in Benghazi; it was unclear how its leader, a former government planning expert named Mahmoud Jibril, would coördinate with Jalil, or whether he had supplanted him.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/04/04/110404taco_talk_anderson#ixzz1LQ0PHZd4


Funny, huh? Funnier than saying the rebels are all westerners high on ecstasy.
It's hilarious to think that the rebel leadership is going to bring anything remotely resembling the centers of global capitalism, more like periphery.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, I don't think you have much of a sexual life.

Luís Henrique

Don't troll me, bro. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Who exactly is Saif Al-Islam? I hadn't heard about Saif Al-Arab until this attack and didn't know there were two sons so similarly named. Qaddafi can burn in hell but it's pretty badass that he named two of his sons "sword of the Arabs" and "sword of Islam"

Al-Arab was his youngest I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Arab_al-Gaddafi

Al-Islam was the nutter we saw on TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi

[Sentinel]

No, I don't think you have much of a sexual life.Luis, I understand that you despise Radioraheems politics please remember the flaming rules (verbal warning).


NATO seems to be killing more children than Gaddafi. Radioraheem, as I said in the post you quoted, I'm against the intervention by Nato. I'm simply indifferent about the death of Gaddafi and his sons, who act as commanders in his army.


How about these statements from rebels:

“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.”

“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.

My position is to be critical towards both Gaddafi, an anti-communist dictator who as many seem to forget up until recently was best pals with the neo-liberal leaders of the west, and the rebel leadership who invited the Nato and who I'm afraid might make Libya a satellite of the western capitalist class.

I support Gaddafis overthrow by the workers, but am against Libya becoming a pawn of the western capitalists which is the route the rebel leaders seem to have chosen -- which is why I find the situation quite unfortunate.

[RadioRaheem84]

The situation is unfortunate but would you fault a Libyan seeing his country ransacked by NATO, watching the familiar faces pushing neo-liberalism by opportunist former Gaddafi regime politicos and businessmen coming back to hijack the movement, at least hoping that Gaddafi pushes those forces back?

[Omsk]

Im afraid that the workers of Libya will be betrayed in either case,if Gaddafi stays (unlikely) he will have an impossible task of patching the country back up.And if the rebels win (possibly) they will quickly let all the power to the imperialists.
People are expecting that as soon as Gaddafi is down,chocolate will rain down the skies and all will be well.That is an illusion.
The same illusion was present on the territories of East Germany,where the populace thought that crossing the wall will result in a jump into paradise.They were wrong,and when they saw the 'beautiful' west Germany,they wanted their vaterland (East Germany ie DDR) back.

[Sentinel]

The situation is unfortunate but would you fault a Libyan seeing his country ransacked by NATO, watching the familiar faces pushing neo-liberalism by opportunist former Gaddafi regime politicos and businessmen coming back to hijack the movement, at least hoping that Gaddafi pushes those forces back?Well, yes, because Gaddafi is hardly better in any sense, and if he wins it means a bloodbath of anyone critical of him, not just the rebel leadership. His anti-imperialist past was a long time ago now. As I said he was on very good foot with the Nato and was passing lucrative business deals with the west, as well as acting as anti-immigrant EU:s border guard, right until the Nato decided that he was expendable. He is a total asshole.

I don't want either Gaddafi or the rebel leaders in power in Libya, what I hope would happen is that the rebels change their leadership to a more progressive one, send Nato home and overthrow Gaddafi. That would be the ideal solution as I see it.

You may say that it's an unrealistic thing to support or whatever, but it's better than to support Gaddafi as some kind of a lesser evil -- because well, he isn't one.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, yes, because Gaddafi is hardly better in any sense, and if he wins it means a bloodbath of anyone critical of him, not just the rebel leadership. His anti-imperialist past was a long time ago now. As I said he was on very good foot with the Nato and was passing lucrative business deals with the west, as well as acting as anti-immigrant EU:s border guard, right until the Nato decided that he was expendable. He is a total asshole.

I don't want either Gaddafi or the rebel leaders in power in Libya, what I hope would happen is that the rebels change their leadership to a more progressive one, send Nato home and overthrow Gaddafi. That would be the ideal solution as I see it.

You may say that it's an unrealistic thing to support or whatever, but it's better than to support Gaddafi as some kind of a lesser evil -- because well, he isn't one.

I just assumed that a legitimate rebellion could take advantage of a battered Gaddafi to win over him. People consider that to be rank opportunism, but I am like, so what if it is? Is there room to be so principled when NATO is knocking at the door?

[Luís Henrique]

i think a better question would be what would you, or what would you want to do if you were a libyan?

Where would a Libyan communist be, at the inception of the revolt?

Possibly in the grave.

More likely, in jail.

Less likely, deep into clandestinity, to avoid the first two options.

Dead people would not do anything. People in jail would be released by the revolt, if they were luckily enough to be in an area that fell to the rebels. People in clandestinity would have the chance to resurface. Both would have to try to start organising the working class. A task that we know is practically impossible under Gaddafy's regime. So a Libyan communist would have to try and do that in a "liberated" area.

Unless, of course, fourty years of dictatorship and practical impossibility to do political mass work had worn them out, and reduced them to apathetic people. But in this case they would no longer be communists, would they?

Luís Henrique

[Sir Comradical]

Where would a Libyan communist be, at the inception of the revolt?

Possibly in the grave.

More likely, in jail.

Less likely, deep into clandestinity, to avoid the first two options.

Dead people would not do anything. People in jail would be released by the revolt, if they were luckily enough to be in an area that fell to the rebels. People in clandestinity would have the chance to resurface. Both would have to try to start organising the working class. A task that we know is practically impossible under Gaddafy's regime. So a Libyan communist would have to try and do that in a "liberated" area.

Unless, of course, fourty years of dictatorship and practical impossibility to do political mass work had worn them out, and reduced them to apathetic people. But in this case they would no longer be communists, would they?

Luís Henrique

So basically you're a NATO cheerleader. I'll remind you of these posts if ever Libya becomes the new Afghanistan/Kosovo - that is NATO protectorates run by criminals.