Gadhaffi worst? Or Its the Rebels?

[El Oso Rojo]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-cannibalism-rape-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

I know know, Ghadaffi bad, but i rather support someone who use the oil wealth to help the people of that country, than to support these animals.

[Sir Comradical]

If they didn't have their NATO buddies to support them, the Libyan Army would have smashed the shit out of them already and the war would be over.

[khad]

These videos are the reality check. Ironically, by claiming Gadhaffi’s forces have been responsible for rape crimes specifically, NATO has made a glaring admission that War Crimes are in fact occurring inside Libya. Headlines that Gadhaffi issued Viagra to fuel rape binges by his soldiers played very well on CNN. However former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has determined that the only major purchaser of Viagra bound for Libya was the U.S. Government itself, which handed out Little Blue Pills to older Rebel soldiers to energize them for battle.
However these are not the most graphic stories. The problem in collecting it is traveling hundreds of miles through checkpoints and bombs. By explanation, as of June 22, non-governmental fact finders are traveling 200 miles to video a boy who got castrated and both eyes gouged out by NATO Rebels as punishment for refusing to join their paramilitary unit. Other video getting collected comes from a father, who describes the kidnapping of his virgin daughter from a pro-Gadhaffi family. After dragging her out of the house at gun-point and taking her to a rape party, NATO rebels cut off her breasts with a knife, and she bled to death.

Human rights investigators are now interviewing a Libyan Woman from Zawia who survived a brutal gang rape that cut off her breasts. Miraculously, horrified on-lookers saved her from bleeding to death, when excited Rebels ran off, firing their guns in the air. She’s been hospitalized, but she’s too physically and mentally damaged to handle the interview at the moment. International human rights attorney are standing by.Until there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, we should all claim that the United States is giving Viagra to Al-Qaeda rebels to commit mass rape.

It makes a lot more sense than the accusations levied against the Libyan government, don't you think?

After all, the United States has an established policy of providing it clients with the little blue pills.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-12-26/news/17131240_1_cia-officer-taliban-commanders-afghanistan

[Black Sheep]

It's fun to see people get outraged by not that rare practices in those islamic regions,when these practices are committed by the side they support.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think it's quite clear that each of them is worse than the other.

[Zealot]

Revolutions fail if they don't have the support of the people, which is what would have happened if good ole NATO hadn't stepped in. It's really hard to figure out whether Gadhaffi is as bad as they say with all this BS being thrown at us each day.

[Sir Comradical]

Revolutions fail if they don't have the support of the people, which is what would have happened if good ole NATO hadn't stepped in. It's really hard to figure out whether Gadhaffi is as bad as they say with all this BS being thrown at us each day.

NATO aggression was predicated on the rebel's claim that the Libyan Army massacred 10,000 people. This claim has never been verified.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a fucked up situation for people like us, because it's become clear with time that, in the context of the Arab uprisings this year, Libya is a somewhat unique case in that it seems the US and NATO have been very quick to attack Qaddafi. Seems like retribution from them, to me, for his past actions - Lockerbie, supporting insurgency and so on. He doesn't really stand a chance, I don't think they'll let him live, tbh.

What's funny (well, not funny, but quite perverse), is that it seems that, Tunisia and Egypt aside, places like Syria, Bahrain and so on have, or had, not reached anywhere near a critical mass of protesters, yet the brutal actions of the dictatorships have probably hastened their own demises, as in the Yemen. There are often reports of thousands or tens of thousands of protesters in these countries, which should be nowhere near enough to topple a democratic, let alone a dictatorial, regime.

As for the original question, I don't believe it is possible to qualitatively answer the question. Both sides are so bad that there is no way we can support either one, even in defence against the other side. The best we can hope is that the bloodshed ends quickly, and hopefully that whatever situation Libya is in after this war, the working people of Libya awaken with a political consciousness.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

I am almost certain that Qaddafi is a bastard, and it appears that he has made quite a few concessions with the imperialists in recent years, but what matters most right now is that he is against Them, and anybody who meets this single criterion constitutes a value of Us (even if it is a short-lived alliance).

[Obs]

It's fun to see people get outraged by not that rare practices in those islamic regions,when these practices are committed by the side they support.
What the fuck are you talking about? Rape and mutilation are an Islamic thing now? "Yeah, I mean, obviously there are gonna be rapes, these are muslims we're talking about" :rolleyes:.

[Sir Comradical]

I think it's quite clear that each of them is worse than the other.

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here. The people of Libya have legitimate material reasons for sticking with the current regime while there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.

[W1N5T0N]

there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.

Apart from giving armed resistance to Gaddaffi's police state, i assume?

[Obs]

Apart from giving armed resistance to Gaddaffi's police state, i assume?
This post is so fucking stupid I can't even

edit: Question: do you support rapists and mass murderers for resisting the police's authority in society? Actually, you don't have to answer that, because you just fucking said you did.

[W1N5T0N]

...That you can't even take a break to think your dumb and unproductive statement through, and have to give me negative cred points? If you could come up with some kind of good argument to convince me of another viewpoint, fair enough. But the point of this forum is hardly to get insulted over my opinon by ignoramuses like you.

[Obs]

I'll admit, I have no clue how to counter your point. That's because your point is that we should support the rebels, who run a deeply authoritative and violent society in the cities they control, commit mass rape and mutilation, and kill civilians indiscriminately in order to oppose Gaddafi's police state, which is objectively a much less horrible country than what the rebels seem to have in mind for Libya.

And that's stupid.

[Sir Comradical]

Apart from giving armed resistance to Gaddaffi's police state, i assume?

Gaddafi's incompetent police state perhaps. An actual police state would have crushed this CIA insurgency months ago. In any case if I was living in Libya I'd prefer Gaddafi's regime over a potential rightist/islamist government. To put it in terms you'd understand, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Anyway when Libyan women are being stoned to death for adultery in stadiums, I'll send you a pm titled 'I told you so'.

[bcbm]

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here.

why?

[Sir Comradical]

why?

Because it's not some isolated fight between political factions without outside interference. This is a clear cut case of imperialist aggression against Libya. When the imperialists attacked Iraq it was absolutely justified to support the military defense of Iraq against imperialist aggression. Why is this any different? As I said, you have NATO/Rebels on one side and the Libyan Government on the other side. Now which side are you on?

[thefinalmarch]

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here. The people of Libya have legitimate material reasons for sticking with the current regime while there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.
Notice the thorough class analysis. Apparently it's only a class matter when you want it to be. A position favoring the pursuit of the objective class interests of the working class is seemingly frowned upon here. Brilliant.

[Obs]

Notice the thorough class analysis. Apparently it's only a class matter when you want it to be. A position favoring the pursuit of the objective class interests of the working class is seemingly frowned upon here. Brilliant.
Both sides are capitalist, so the difference is that in one case, the working class is only figuratively being systematically raped.

[bcbm]

Because it's not some isolated fight between political factions without outside interference. This is a clear cut case of imperialist aggression against Libya.

so oppose the nato intervention.


As I said, you have NATO/Rebels on one side and the Libyan Government on the other side. Now which side are you on?

neither and i still am not sure how my or any of our "taking sides" on this matters in any way.

[Sir Comradical]

Notice the thorough class analysis. Apparently it's only a class matter when you want it to be. A position favoring the pursuit of the objective class interests of the working class is seemingly frowned upon here. Brilliant.

Please, enlighten me with your class analysis of the situation.

[W1N5T0N]

That's because your point is that we should support the rebels, who run a deeply authoritative and violent society in the cities they control, commit mass rape and mutilation, and kill civilians indiscriminately in order to oppose Gaddafi's police state

What about the deeply authoritative society that kills all dissident civilans immediately? Now let me get my point across clearly: I have seen more shit from Gaddaffi than i have from the rebels. Does that mean that the Rebels are right? nope. Does their revolution give a guarantee of better conditions? nope. Are they supported by the IMF? yes. But i still oppose Gaddaffis authoritative regime. I hope that the next government will be less oppressive, which of course does not entail that exploitation and oppression will be wiped out. Dissent should be allowed in any society, and i regret seeing that there is a war being waged by people against each other which could actually be fighting against a common enemy. The thing is that if the rebels win, state-capitalism will be replaced by free-market capitalism, which is to say the least, disappointing. Hopefully, the workers can, after the rebellion, stop the trend and form unions (which, i think, are not tolerated by Gaddaffi/IMF).


In any case if I was living in Libya I'd prefer Gaddafi's regime over a potential rightist/islamist government. To put it in terms you'd understand, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know

Its good that you use the word potential, because we don't know the exact course of the near future. Adding to that, Libya is at the moment a pseudo-leftist authoritative islamist regime. Gaddaffi's green book is a strange mix of islamist views and leftism.

I have actually revised my position in the last weeks, and i think that in this situation, there is no "100 percent straightforward you better believe it" good or bad. From my point of view, Gaddaffi is authoritarian, and the Rebels are supported by IMF. So, maybe somebody could explain to me what third alternative to these two there might be in the current situation?

Okay, now if somebody could please reply to this in a normal fashion, without embarassing him/herself by negrepping me and calling me a "fucking idiot", which would just show his lack of arguments, i would greatly appreaciate it!:)

[Jose Gracchus]

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here. The people of Libya have legitimate material reasons for sticking with the current regime while there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.

Not really. Its not obligatory for me (or anyone else) to play into the self-righteous moralist recruiting and marketing model for Brezhnevite activist groups in the West.

[Sir Comradical]

so oppose the nato intervention.



neither and i still am not sure how my or any of our "taking sides" on this matters in any way.

You're right, convincing the workers of the aggressive imperialist states we live in to adopt anti-imperialist positions is unimportant.

[Obs]

What about the deeply authoritative society that kills all dissident civilans immediately?
Source, please.

Did you even read the article in the OP?

[Sir Comradical]

Not really. Its not obligatory for me (or anyone else) to play into the self-righteous moralist recruiting and marketing model for Brezhnevite activist groups in the West.

There are Brezhnevite activist groups? lol. No but seriously I don't follow you.

[bcbm]

You're right, convincing the workers of the aggressive imperialist states we live in to adopt anti-imperialist positions is unimportant.

so you have to express support for dictators and not just oppose nato's actions to have an "anti-imperialist position?"

[Sir Comradical]

What about the deeply authoritative society that kills all dissident civilans immediately? Now let me get my point across clearly: I have seen more shit from Gaddaffi than i have from the rebels. Does that mean that the Rebels are right? nope. Does their revolution give a guarantee of better conditions? nope. Are they supported by the IMF? yes. But i still oppose Gaddaffis authoritative regime. I hope that the next government will be less oppressive, which of course does not entail that exploitation and oppression will be wiped out. Dissent should be allowed in any society, and i regret seeing that there is a war being waged by people against each other which could actually be fighting against a common enemy. The thing is that if the rebels win, state-capitalism will be replaced by free-market capitalism, which is to say the least, disappointing. Hopefully, the workers can, after the rebellion, stop the trend and form unions (which, i think, are not tolerated by Gaddaffi/IMF).

You mean like when Gaddafi's bloodthirsty baby-eating wolves murdered 10,000 people? (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174468.html)

(Kill tally claimed by Rebel forces, but don't worry it's still objective.)

[Bronco]

You're right, convincing the workers of the aggressive imperialist states we live in to adopt anti-imperialist positions is unimportant.

Because that's what Gaddafi was doing when he was buying arms from the West and cosying up to Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Bush etc.?

[Sir Comradical]

so you have to express support for dictators and not just oppose nato's actions to have an "anti-imperialist position?"

It follows logically in this situation to support the Libyan government.

[bcbm]

Source, please.

Did you even read the article in the OP?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13622965

the rebels being shit doesn't make gaddafi not shit

[Sir Comradical]

Because that's what Gaddafi was doing when he was buying arms from the West and cosying up to Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Bush etc.?

Yes and now they want to overthrow Gaddafi. You're point?

[bcbm]

It follows logically in this situation to support the Libyan government.

i would say it follows logically for workers to not back ruling class factions

[Jose Gracchus]

Which faction should workers tail in the Mexican Drug War? Corrupt Mexican cops backed by U.S. funding, training, and firepower, or local drug cartels and their murdering foot soldiers? Clearly you must pick one, and its the task of communists to help workers pick.

[Sir Comradical]

Which faction should workers tail in the Mexican Drug War? Corrupt Mexican cops backed by U.S. funding, training, and firepower, or local drug cartels and their murdering foot soldiers? Clearly you must pick one, and its the task of communists to help workers pick.

Workers should oppose the war on drugs in that situation. Anyway I'll give greater credence to this analogy of yours when the US invades Mexico on the side of the Drug Cartels to overthrow the Mexican government.

[Bronco]

Yes and now they want to overthrow Gaddafi. You're point?

My point is that Gaddafi was an Imperialist tool only until it was no longer in the interest of the West to prop up his regime, circumstances have dictated that he is now in conflict with the West but that doesn't mean he's suddenly become some anti-Imperialist progressive overnight.

Besides, to use anti-Imperialism as your sole basis for supporting his regime is misguided at best, as is judging a regimes progressiveness by it's hostility to the USA and other Imperialist powers

[Jose Gracchus]

Workers should oppose the war on drugs in that situation. Anyway I'll give greater credence to this analogy of yours when the US invades Mexico on the side of the Drug Cartels to overthrow the Mexican government.

The U.S. provides quite extensive material support to the Mexican drug war on the federal police level, despite the demand for cocaine by the recreational preferences of the U.S. ruling class and its lumpenbourgeois mini-me's being the primary cause of it. The police are nearly as brutal and corrupt as the drug lords. I think it is a fine analogy to the absurd dilemma's posted by Stalinists who lack any practical revolutionary program, today, and therefore have only the "CAN YOU BELIEVE THE ISO SAID THAT? PRO IMPERIALIST DOG WERE THE REAL COMMIEZ BECUZ WE SUPPORT THE THIRD WORLD NATIONALIST DICTATOR WOO" device to rely upon?

Brezhnevites and most other Western Stalinists would have no politics if they weren't challenging others in the activist ghettos to tail their dick-measuring contests over who offers more meaningless and vacuous "moral support" for this-or-that Third World nationalist kingpin.

[Sir Comradical]

i would say it follows logically for workers to not back ruling class factions

If you're opposed to imperialist aggression against Libya (and I'm sure you are) then you'd naturally want NATO to be defeated. The only existing Army that can defeat NATO in this current conflict is the Libyan Army, not the imaginary Antifa-Libya or the CPL-ML or the SWP of Libya.

[Jose Gracchus]

I do not think it is the role of communists, especially in the form of airy bullshit which means nothing from armchairs in the West, to encourage workers to sign up in any bourgeois army of any kind.

[bcbm]

If you're opposed to imperialist aggression against Libya (and I'm sure you are) then you'd naturally want NATO to be defeated. The only existing Army that can defeat NATO in this current conflict is the Libyan Army, not the imaginary Antifa-Libya or the CPL-ML or the SWP of Libya.

or to just quit being involved, which is incidentally the only effective demand to be made from my current position, as opposed to cheering on one bunch of thugs over another which doesn't seem likely to amount to anything.

[Sir Comradical]

I do not think it is the role of communists, especially in the form of airy bullshit which means nothing from armchairs in the West, to encourage workers to sign up in any bourgeois army of any kind.

When Israel tried to invade Lebanon in 2006, did you support Hezbollah?

[graymouser]

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here. The people of Libya have legitimate material reasons for sticking with the current regime while there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.
That is nonsense, and discredits the antiwar movement by siding it with people like Gaddafi.

I am opposed to the US and NATO intervention in Libya; I am helping to organize a rally in Philadelphia that will happen later on today. Other groups have followed our lead and called for rallies in their cities this afternoon. Today is the day that NATO's mission is formally renewed for another 90 day period. And I want to emphasize: literally, I'm going to be protesting this war this afternoon.

But that doesn't mean I support Gaddafi or think that the Libyan people should side with his regime. I also think that the Transitional National Council has willingly turned itself into a puppet government for NATO and do not support it in the least. I think the initial forces that were protesting Gaddafi were a legitimate democratic movement, that was hijacked by cynical pro-imperialist politicians for their own aims, first in the TNC and then by NATO. Socialist Action's position, which I agree with, is that both the TNC and Gaddafi should be opposed by the Libyan people, as neither is a legitimate representative of their interests.

Why people insist on siding with Gaddafi is beyond me. The Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain at least got money for it, do the Marcyites and Stalinoids just do it for some imaginary anti-imperialist cred?

[Jose Gracchus]

When Israel tried to invade Lebanon in 2006, did you support Hezbollah?

Explain to me what does it mean, in practical terms, for me to "support" Hezbollah.

Did I hope Israel would lose, yeah. But I didn't confuse that with communist practice, and rally my group of credulous Western college kid moralists around such a thing as a "line" and print rags denouncing the wrong-thinkers as if this had anything to do with communism. I'm sure as shit not flying over to Beirut to volunteer to fight the Israeli army. At least when Stalinists tried to play these dick-measuring games in the 30s, they put their money where their mouth is.

No such luck today, just self-righteousness over the sublime quality of the "anti-imperialist" "positions" that they've taken. Devoid of practical relevance, purely a self-referential tool for competition on college campuses and among empty activist milieus for more wide-eyed members and paper-hawkers. I see more authenticity whenever I'm at a bar and watch some guys talk up the new class of freshman girls every autumn.

[Sir Comradical]

or to just quit being involved, which is incidentally the only effective demand to be made from my current position, as opposed to cheering on one bunch of thugs over another which doesn't seem likely to amount to anything.

The thugs with green flags are fighting NATO, the thugs with monarchist flags are taking money from the CIA. In this situation I'll take sides.

[bcbm]

good i hope taking sides in which the ruling class wins while workers die for them makes you happy

[Jose Gracchus]

In other words, anywhere where "the West" is involved, the opposite faction of capital becomes communist. Brezhnevism is just a fetish for any group of capitalists who garb themselves with anti-Western street cred. Communists have been riding that horse for half a century, and what is there to show for it now?

[Sir Comradical]

Explain to me what does it mean, in practical terms, for me to "support" Hezbollah.

Did I hope Israel would lose, yeah. But I didn't confuse that with communist practice, and rally my group of credulous Western college kid moralists around such a thing as a "line" and print rags denouncing the wrong-thinkers as if this had anything to do with communism. I'm sure as shit not flying over to Beirut to volunteer to fight the Israeli army. At least when Stalinists tried to play these dick-measuring games in the 30s, they put their money where their mouth is.

At the time it meant informing the public that Hezbollah was a legitimate resistance movement standing up to Israeli terrorism. Strong positions like that gave greater credence to the BDS movement against Israeli apartheid and will hopefully damage Australia's relationship with Israel. Countering corporate propaganda with our own propaganda is needed to raise the consciousness of the workers.

I didn't ask you to fly to Lebanon. Don't call me a Stalinist, it hurts my feelings.


No such luck today, just self-righteousness over the sublime quality of the "anti-imperialist" "positions" that they've taken. Devoid of practical relevance, purely a self-referential tool for competition on college campuses and among empty activist milieus for more wide-eyed members and paper-hawkers. I see more authenticity whenever I'm at a bar and watch some guys talk up the new class of freshman girls every autumn.

Cool story, bro.

[Sir Comradical]

In other words, anywhere where "the West" is involved, the opposite faction of capital becomes communist. Brezhnevism is just a fetish for any group of capitalists who garb themselves with anti-Western street cred. Communists have been riding that horse for half a century, and what is there to show for it now?

When did I say this?

[Sir Comradical]

That is nonsense, and discredits the antiwar movement by siding it with people like Gaddafi.

I am opposed to the US and NATO intervention in Libya; I am helping to organize a rally in Philadelphia that will happen later on today. Other groups have followed our lead and called for rallies in their cities this afternoon. Today is the day that NATO's mission is formally renewed for another 90 day period. And I want to emphasize: literally, I'm going to be protesting this war this afternoon.

But that doesn't mean I support Gaddafi or think that the Libyan people should side with his regime. I also think that the Transitional National Council has willingly turned itself into a puppet government for NATO and do not support it in the least. I think the initial forces that were protesting Gaddafi were a legitimate democratic movement, that was hijacked by cynical pro-imperialist politicians for their own aims, first in the TNC and then by NATO. Socialist Action's position, which I agree with, is that both the TNC and Gaddafi should be opposed by the Libyan people, as neither is a legitimate representative of their interests.

Why people insist on siding with Gaddafi is beyond me. The Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain at least got money for it, do the Marcyites and Stalinoids just do it for some imaginary anti-imperialist cred?

Is there an actual army that represents the "Libyan people"? Well both the government and the rebels claim to represent the "Libyan people". So there's no point basing your analysis of the conflict along the lines of these abstract entities while ignoring the forces that actually do exist. The only army in Libya that's in a position to fight NATO is the Libyan Army and clearly we all want NATO to be defeated here.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Gaddafi's incompetent police state perhaps. An actual police state would have crushed this CIA insurgency months ago. In any case if I was living in Libya I'd prefer Gaddafi's regime over a potential rightist/islamist government. To put it in terms you'd understand, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Anyway when Libyan women are being stoned to death for adultery in stadiums, I'll send you a pm titled 'I told you so'.

Gadaffi's government if I remember correctly had many socialist aspirations. It could be defined as a socialist oriented government.

What this invasion of Libya is really all about is international capitalism coming to bring the Libyan people capitalism by the ends of guns and bombs.

This is all being carried out by the United States and a whole array of different nations through NATO.

Western liberation really amounts to imposed capitalism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Gadaffi's government if I remember correctly had many socialist aspirations. It could be defined as a socialist oriented government.

What this invasion of Libya is really all about is international capitalism coming to bring the Libyan people capitalism by the ends of guns and bombs.

This is all being carried out by the United States and a whole array of different nations through NATO.

Western liberation really amounts to imposed capitalism.

How was Libyan state in January 1st, 2011 not operating clearly within the normal bounds of the capitalist mode of production? You've evacuated terms of anything but their most tenuous and vacuous content.

[Rafiq]

What the fuck are you talking about? Rape and mutilation are an Islamic thing now? "Yeah, I mean, obviously there are gonna be rapes, these are muslims we're talking about" :rolleyes:.

Rape is an old war tactic common in every part of the world.

In under developed nations, it remains common. So yes, there is a 'cultural' aspect to it, just as much as there was a 'cultural' aspect to the Europeans in the crusades beheading the non-believers (Jews, muslims, ect.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Cute, but it's not really a position is it? There are two sides NATO/Rebels and the Libyan Government. You have to actually take a side here. The people of Libya have legitimate material reasons for sticking with the current regime while there are NO good reasons to support the rebels.

Sorry, I have to call you out on this bullshit.

Who the fuck are you to tell someone else that they MUST take a side here, when objectively, both sides here are anti-democratic, anti-Socialist and anti-worker.

Revolutionary pessimism here is perfectly acceptable. As Socialists, we want neither side in power. They are both that bad. Thus, we will do harm to both sides by not siding with either.

You say we actually have to take a side. Fine. But you shouldn't be so close-minded as to assume that the only action is to wilfully support either Qaddafi or the rebels. If we all followed that logic, then UK leftists would be wilfully supporting Labour, US leftists Barack Obama and so on. Silly position, comrade.

[Rafiq]

Notice the thorough class analysis. Apparently it's only a class matter when you want it to be. A position favoring the pursuit of the objective class interests of the working class is seemingly frowned upon here. Brilliant.

I agree, but the question also remains.... Which side, when taking (or remaining) in power, will give the workers a better chance to revolt?

[Mr. Cervantes]

How was Libyan state in January 1st, 2011 not operating clearly within the normal bounds of the capitalist mode of production? You've evacuated terms of anything but their most tenuous and vacuous content.


The Tripoli-based government of Muammar Gaddafi refers to the Libyan state as the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.[5]

Right there...

It may not be a perfect socialist government but it still is one nonetheless.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Right there...

It may not be a perfect socialist government but it still is one nonetheless.

So should we be bowing down to the great Socialist Peoples' republics of China, Laos, Vietnam and so on, now?

Stop being ridiculous.

Red flag + word =/= real existing Socialism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Right there...

It may not be a perfect socialist government but it still is one nonetheless.

Oh wow! It...its....well right there in the name! Goddamn, how could I be so stupid.

[Rafiq]

Didn't Fascist germany call itself socialist? What about Syria?

[Mr. Cervantes]

Oh wow! It...its....well right there in the name! Goddamn, how could I be so stupid.

A imperfect platform is better than no platform at all.

[Jose Gracchus]

You are a fucking idiot.

Say-so government propaganda does not establish something as material fact. Is the U.S. government a democracy, after all, they say so?

[Mr. Cervantes]

You are a fucking idiot.

Say-so government propaganda does not establish something as material fact. Is the U.S. government a democracy, after all, they say so?

What is better?

Having a imperfect socialist and communist platform that can be reformed over many years or belonging to a political party within a nation that can't even be registered to vote for?

What would you rather have? A imperfect socialist and communist society or a capitalist one?

[Jose Gracchus]

Was the law of value in action in Gaddafi's Libya? True or false? Is production for profit? Did foreign corporations make money off Libyan workers?

[Mr. Cervantes]

Was the law of value in action in Gaddafi's Libya? True or false? Is production for profit? Did foreign corporations make money off Libyan workers?

Wasn't his financial and banking structure firmly nationalized within Libya?

[Jose Gracchus]

Wasn't his financial and banking structure firmly nationalized within Libya?

So what? Is that what determines 'socialism'? Were workers subject to exploitation, yes or no?

[RadioRaheem84]

Look arguing that Gaddafi is some sort of proletarian hero is worthless. The guy neo-liberalized elements of his nationalist state, but backed off when many members of his government called for more. People are upset at the unequal outcomes of the neo-liberal reforms, and are taking out there anger on Gaddafi (and rightly so), BUT the neo-liberal cabal have joined forces and taken over the rebel movement, employing some of the seediest elements of Eastern Libya to do their fighting.

The Rebels are obviously the worst of the two "evils".

Gaddafi is a tin pot at this point but he has fought against the total liberalization of his nation and that is a good thing.

The Rebels are out there causing the most disgusting forms of mayhem not seen since the Contras or the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the 80s.

Reports are coming out of mass rapes, beheadings and brutal murders of anyone suspected of being loyal to Gaddafi.

Amnesty International cannot even find one shred of evidence of mass rapes or targeted killings against civilians by pro-Gaddafi forces (or as known to the country; the ARMY). Yet, they have found dozens of cases of genital mutilation, rape and beheadings by Rebel forces.

It's clear as day as to who is worse!

[Mr. Cervantes]

In the late 1980s, Qadhafi continued to perceive himself as a revolutionary leader. Qadhafi has always claimed that the September 1969 overthrow of the monarchy was a popular revolution, not merely a military coup d'état. In fact, only a few military officers and enlisted men took part in the September revolution. Qadhafi reconciled the apparent inconsistency by stressing that the military--and more specifically the Free Officers Movement, whose members took part in the coup and subsequently formed the RCC--shared the humble origins of the people and represented their demands. Qadhafi depicted the military as the vanguard elite of the people, a concept adopted from Marxist-Leninist ideology. But although Qadhafi wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary leader and justified military domination of Libya with the concept of the vanguard elite, he excoriated communism as well as capitalism.
The wellsprings of Qadhafi's political thought are the Quran and Nasserism. As an ardent admirer of Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser, Qadhafi has never wavered in the conviction that he is Nasser's legitimate heir. As such, he felt compelled to advance Nasser's struggle for Arab unity and socialism. Qadhafi was influenced by Nasser's theory of the concentric Islamic, Arab, and African circles of influence. And Qadhafi, like Nasser, was also influenced by the ideology of the Syrian Baath Party, which advocated Arab unity and socialism.
Qadhafi expanded Nasser's political thought by emphasizing the Islamic bases of socialism in that the Quran condemns class domination and exploitation. Qadhafi stated that although Islam "cannot be described as socialism in its modern sense, it strives to a certain extent to dissolve the differences among classes." According to Qadhafi, "almsgiving is the nucleus of the socialist spirit in Islam." Socialism in Libya was to mean "social justice." Work, production, and resources were all to be shared fairly, and extreme disparities between rich and poor were to be eliminated. But social hierarchy, as provided for in the Quran, would remain, and class harmony, not class warfare, would be the result. Qadhafi stressed that this socialism, inherent in Islam, was not merely a stage toward communism, as the Marxist theorists would argue.
For Qadhafi as for Nasser, Arab nationalism took primacy over pan-Islamism. Both leaders can be described as secularists, although Qadhafi increasingly emphasized the Islamic roots of his ideology. Yet, his main interest undoubtedly lay in the secular rather than the sacred world. Revolution, the propagation of The Green Book, mass mobilization, and liberation remained his obsessions. "I love the people, all the people," he proclaimed in a 1986 interview with a French television newscaster published in Jeune Afrique. "I would like the people to vanquish the government, the armies, the police, the parties, and the parliaments," he said in explanation of his notion of direct democracy in which people rule themselves without the mediation of traditional governmental institutions. "I am the prophet of the revolution and not the prophet of Allah," Qadhafi declared in the same interview, "for what interests me in this century is that The Green Book become the bible of the modern world."
The secular basis of Qadhafi's philosophy was emphasized further by the Libyan adoption of the Baath Party slogan of unity, freedom, and socialism. These ideals were embodied in the first revolutionary pronouncement of September 1, 1969, and reiterated in the Constitutional Proclamation of December 11, 1969. They were afterward refined and modified in response to practical Libyan considerations. The ideal of freedom included the freedom of the nation and its citizens from foreign oppression. Freedom was considered to have been achieved by the revolution and the subsequent negotiations that quickly ended the existence of foreign military bases in Libya. The ideal of freedom also encompassed freedom from want of the basic necessities of life and freedom from poverty, disease, and ignorance. In this regard, the ideal of freedom called for the ideal of socialism.
Libyan socialism has succeeded to the extent that social welfare programs have been subsidized by oil revenues. By all accounts, the Qadhafi regime has succeeded to an impressive degree in fulfilling basic human material needs. Libya has also been relatively successful in achieving economic egalitarianism. To Qadhafi, such equality entails abolishing the conventional employer-employee relationship. Wage labor is regarded as a form of slavery. Similarly, to prevent landlord-tenant relationships, no person may own more than one house. Furthermore, because domestic servants are considered "a type of slave," the residents of a house should perform their own household work. To achieve economic justice, the slogans of "partners, not wage-earners" and "those who produce, consume" have been proclaimed and, to a significant degree, established.
The Libyan revolutionary ideal of unity was Arab unity, the cause for which Qadhafi was the undisputed champion after the death of Nasser. Qadhafi believed that, through unity, Arabs had achieved greatness during the Middle Ages, when Arab accomplishments in the arts and sciences had overshadowed European counterparts. He further believed that foreign oppression and colonial domination ended Arab unity; until it was restored, the Arab world would suffer injustice and humiliation, as it had when Palestine was lost. Qadhafi believed that the ideal of unity should be realized through practical steps, initial combinations of Arab states providing the nucleus for some form of ultimate unity. Toward this end he initiated unity schemes between Libya and several other countries, but, as of 1987, none of the schemes had been successful. At the 1972 National Congress, Qadhafi likened the role of Libya in unifying the Arab nation to that of Prussia in unifying Germany and to that of Piedmont in unifying Italy. Although most Arab leaders share or sympathize with Qadhafi's ideology of Arab unity, most consider as naive his ardent conviction that unity can be accomplished. Despite his transnational orientation, Qadhafi is parochial in his outlook. His beduin background, obviously a critical factor shaping his personality, inculcated a set of values and modes of behavior often at odds with prevailing international norms. Therefore, he has been awkward at diplomatic give-and-take in comparison to other Arab leaders. For Qadhafi, nomadic life is preferable to urban ways because of its simplicity, pervasive sense of egalitarianism, and puritanism unpolluted by modern, largely alien, cultural influences.



http://countrystudies.us/libya/77.htm

[Jose Gracchus]

Establishing "who is worse" is not the same thing as establishing that is really a plank of communist politics to tell workers to tail which faction of capital is "not as bad".

Funny enough, its the same people who flog this horse who have squealed like stuck pigs regarding the "lesser evil" vote reasoning, which is identical.

As for that wall-of-text; funny, somehow the Guide of the Revolution's sons manage to have giant ass parties with fashionable European bourgeois and with Mariah Carey performing, and are able to personally accumulate billions. Wonder how that happened.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Establishing "who is worse" is not the same thing as establishing that is really a plank of communist politics to tell workers to tail which faction of capital is "not as bad".

Funny enough, its the same people who flog this horse who have squealed like stuck pigs regarding the "lesser evil" vote reasoning, which is identical.

For some reason people think socialism or communism implemented has to be perfect for it to be genuine.

Human nature has a corruptability leaving any implemented socialism or communism imperfectly maintained.

There is ultimately no utopic state of communism or socialism. Only imperfections of both.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-cannibalism-rape-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

I know know, Ghadaffi bad, but i rather support someone who use the oil wealth to help the people of that country, than to support these animals.

Sorry, I didn't know using heavy artillery on populated areas counted as using the oil wealth to help your own people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-13901518

Gaddafi is a royal fucker, as are the people behind him. There are many equally brutish, violent individuals amongst the Rebels of course, and anyone who doubts that is under serious delusions. Of course, many of the rebels themselves are deserters from Gaddafi's own side, including the leaders of the so-called "Transitional council". However, there are many "Rebels" across Libya, and I think it is a mistake to lump them all in together when some are bad because there is no cohesive command and control structure. The NTC is the closest thing, but their authority is more self-imposed than anything else.

For instance, there are also rebels fighting because Gaddafi has repressed the Berber language quite badly. They fly the rebel flag, but have completely provincial aims. Yet their provincial aims-cultural self determination, are aims that "Leftists" should support. So in that respect, if there are rebels fighting for legitimate causes under the broad anti-Gaddafi banner, then I don't have a problem with them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/06/2011621111013293873.html

Likewise, the rebels in Misratah were fighting largely independently of the rebels in Benghazi. I see no reason to assume that they function as a cohesive fighting force, especially seeing as how, despite the organized and tenacious resistance from Misratah, the rebels in Benghazi showed themselves to have very poor or no real organization to speak of.

With that in mind, it seems that the rebels are not actually homogenous. Once Gaddafi is gone, the contradictions within the "rebels" will come to the fore. An example of this is happening right now in Yemen. The Islah Islamist party, which was a major force behind the Yemen protests, alienated many members of the student movement. Now that Saleh is gone and the regime is weakening rapidly, the youth protesters and the "leaders" of the rebellion will naturally have their conflicts too. There's no reason to think that similar divisions won't emerge once the strong man is gone.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201162683433467434.html

As long as Gaddafi is in power, the rebels will appear homogenous, but once he is gone, the fact that the rebels are fighting for a variety of causes will force them to split up once Gaddafi is gone.

Raheem-What about Iman Obeidi, who had to flee the country after Libyan State TV accused her of being a drunk and a whore once she raised her allegations of rape? She had to flee the country after being horribly intimidated by State authorities. And there are many other allegations of rape and wanton violence by Gaddafi's forces, so pretending that only the rebels are responsible for war crimes here is just silly. This is doubly the case when you consider that the vast majority of revolutions has seen violent war crimes. For instance there were antisemitic lynchings during the French revolution, that doesn't mean I would think of King Louis as the lesser of two evils.

[Mr. Cervantes]

The rebels in Libya are American sponsored. It's all apart of a much greater Arab spring.

It's western capitalism that wishes to intervene in Libya.

[Jose Gracchus]

For some reason people think socialism or communism implemented has to be perfect for it to be genuine.

Human nature has a corruptability leaving any implemented socialism or communism imperfectly maintained.

There is ultimately no utopic state of communism or socialism. Only imperfections of both.

Have you read any Marx, Bakunin, anything? Or is your politics just dull imitations of Brezhnevite slogans?

[danyboy27]

The rebels in Libya are American sponsored. It's all apart of a much greater Arab spring.

It's western capitalism that wishes to intervene in Libya.


western capitalism was already in libya bro.

just so you know, the country in wich i live in had a lot of verry juicy contract with the man.

[RadioRaheem84]

As long as Gaddafi is in power, the rebels will appear homogenous, but once he is gone, the fact that the rebels are fighting for a variety of causes will force them to split up once Gaddafi is gone.

Hogwash! Whatever legitimacy the rebel movement had, mind you a product of Gaddafi listening to the same neo-liberal cabal that is now fighting against him, has now been largely usurped by the Transition Council which claims to be the sole authority of any post-Gaddafi government. It's the only force that the West will listen to or allow to have any legitimacy.

Whatever elements were legit before will be put down massively by the incoming Transition Council.

Gaddafi, at this point is offering concessions and probably know understands the outcome of the massive liberalization campaign he undertook while taking the advice of opportunist neo-liberals. Perhaps, this could signal change for Libya and a turning back of the neo-liberal reforms.

I would rather concerned elements of Libyan society deal with a battered Gaddafi then a strong Transitional Council with the West as hired guns and a rabidly reactionary para-military force as it's guard.

The real rebel movement and reformers would do better with getting Gaddafi to repeal the neo-liberal reforms and offer a more equitable distribution of the oil wealth than have to deal with an unapologetically neo-liberal cabal that has Western-backed power.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hogwash! Whatever legitimacy the rebel movement had, mind you a product of Gaddafi listening to the same neo-liberal cabal that is now fighting against him, has now been largely usurped by the Transition Council which claims to be the sole authority of any post-Gaddafi government. It's the only force that the West will listen to or allow to have any legitimacy.

Whatever elements were legit before will be put down massively by the incoming Transition Council.


Says who? The council in Benghazi has shown itself to be the least effective of the rebel agglomerations at actually winning against Gaddafi's forces. I can't imagine the children with pickups who were fighting in Bregha under the transitional council going into the mountains to repress Berber guerrillas, or force their will on Misratah which survived a long siege by Gaddafi's forces and fought more effectively than the rebels in the East.

So the NTC claims to have authority like that, but there's no reason to think that the majority of Libyans would just accept that claim if they tried to institute policies which are actually bad for the Libyan people.

I offered the example of Yemen and Saleh. It was not until Saleh was gone that the protesters split with the pro-business Islah party, which until then had been taking a disproportionate amount of influence there. Until then, the protesters held their tongue at the repression by the bourgeois elements of the Yemeni protest movement, but are now openly critical. Of course, the bourgeois elements in Yemen are much better armed, having a large tribal militia and a large military division which deserted from the government. But that fact does not prevent me from showing sympathy with the Yemen protests! On the contrary, it means we should root for a particular faction of the protesters.



Gaddafi, at this point is offering concessions and probably know understands the outcome of the massive liberalization campaign he undertook while taking the advice of opportunist neo-liberals. Perhaps, this could signal change for Libya and a turning back of the neo-liberal reforms.

I would rather concerned elements of Libyan society deal with a battered Gaddafi then a strong Transitional Council with the West as hired guns and a rabidly reactionary para-military force as it's guard.

The real rebel movement and reformers would do better with getting Gaddafi to repeal the neo-liberal reforms and offer a more equitable distribution of the oil wealth than have to deal with an unapologetically neo-liberal cabal that has Western-backed powerYeah, let's give Gaddafi another chance, I'm sure he'll do better the next time around :rolleyes:. If Gaddafi wanted to negotiate with the rebels, he should have done it back in February.

[Omsk]

Oh come on you people,this is basically another Yugoslavia...

Libyan people won't be any better without Gaddafi. The only difference is that the US will get more oil,and Libya will be a real hell hole.

NATO bombed the hell out of them,do you think they will be able to rebuild everything in a couple of years? Of course not.

[RadioRaheem84]

To Shiva:
So let me get this straight. You want the real rebel movement to wish for Gaddafi to be ousted so that they can fight against a well armed, funded and ten times more reactionary
movement in the NTC?

When they can negotiate or see a battered Gaddafi make concessions to avoid another brutal civil war?

I don't think Gaddafi negotiated with the rebels because he didn't want to but probably saw them as agents of the west the entire time. Even then whatever grievances he ignored before, he cannot afford to ignore again.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To Shiva:
So let me get this straight. You want the real rebel movement to wish for Gaddafi to be ousted so that they can fight against a well armed, funded and ten times more reactionary
movement in the NTC?

When they can negotiate or see a battered Gaddafi make concessions to avoid another brutal civil war?


I don't think the NTC is as well-organized or powerful as you seem to say. As I have said, very little fighting has been done by the rebels most closely associated with the NTC recently-much more has been done by rebels in the West in Misuratah, the mountainous areas and Berber territory. In fact, the rebels in the East, if I remember correctly, were complaining even months ago that the Benghazi council was doing very little to help their fighting effort-and that was the rebels around Benghazi!

So with that in mind I see no reason to think that a small council could impose mass privatization and other policies in Libya from their base in Benghazi, considering they haven't even been able to train an organized and capable army yet. Maybe they will, but I disagree strongly with you that it is somehow in the stars that if Gaddafi falls, then the NTC will necessarily impose these reactionary policies you speak of on the population without any complaints.


I don't think Gaddafi negotiated with the rebels because he didn't want to but probably saw them as agents of the west the entire time. Even then whatever grievances he ignored before, he cannot afford to ignore again.Actually, he thought they were al Qaeda (specificially, youths who had been given hallucinogenic drugs in their Nescafe by al Qaeda), and he used that to argue that the West should actually support his government. In fact, on that topic, his ravings show more the depths of Gaddafi's delusional thinking, and therefore his utter ineligibility to run a country, than anything else.

Either way, that's not an excuse. Whether or not the rebel movement was organized by a foreign power has nothing to do with whether their causes are legitimate. On the contrary, a country can only incite rebellions in other countries when the people have something to rebel over. If Gaddafi didn't want the people to fight against him, he should have governed his country better.

[RadioRaheem84]

If the Libyan rebels can manage to negotiate lucrative oil deals with Qatar and the State Department is salivating to secure lucrative oil deals themselves, you bet your ass the Western powers will the NTC as much political clout, funding and support as they need.

And I never said that the NTC will impose law without complaints, but that it will do so with power backed by the West to ensure "stability".

The NTC is a dangerous neo-liberal cabal, that is arming bourgeois and reactionary elements while keeping the latter under control with the help of the West.

I am sure it is you underestimating their reach and their connections with the West.

I was saying that I would rather a legitimate rebel movement deal with Gaddafi than the NTC if it should ever gain power.

[graymouser]

Is there an actual army that represents the "Libyan people"? Well both the government and the rebels claim to represent the "Libyan people". So there's no point basing your analysis of the conflict along the lines of these abstract entities while ignoring the forces that actually do exist. The only army in Libya that's in a position to fight NATO is the Libyan Army and clearly we all want NATO to be defeated here.
The world is not a series of barricades where revolutionaries have to be on one side or the other. In a civil war where imperialism intervenes, which is what is happening in Libya, it's possible to be against the imperialists as well as against both sides in the civil war.

I have not talked about abstract entities at all. Socialist Action's line is that the demonstrators who initially came out, before the rebellion was co-opted by the TNC and NATO, were and are the legitimate anti-imperialist force in Libya, and their return as a force would require a fight against both Gaddafi and the TNC. This is not "the Libyan people" at all, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Also: "we all want NATO to be defeated here" is practically a delusional statement. NATO's air capabilities are NOT going to be beaten militarily by Gaddafi, and anyone who based their strategies on that would lose. What the antiwar movement wants to do is to break the political backing of support for the intervention in the NATO countries, so that as the political and economic costs of the war rise, they are forced to call it off. Things would change if there were boots on the ground, in that an occupation can be defeated by a much smaller force, but a no-fly zone cannot. The only thing Gaddafi can do is wait NATO out.

[bcbm]

The Rebels are out there causing the most disgusting forms of mayhem not seen since the Contras or the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the 80s. this is really sensationalist and not true at all. much worse "forms of mayhem" are occuring right now and have been for decades in much of western and central africa, some of it done by factions backed by gaddafi. :(

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-cannibalism-rape-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

Sensationalist?

[t.shonku]

Gaddafi is a dictator no doubt about that. But he is better than the rebels who are working for the oil cartels, besides those rebels are racist at least that is what I have heard.

Gaddafi is being demonised by western media , the media first told us that Gaddafi is using rape as a weapon now we hear that the theory is a complete false

[Hebrew Hammer]

I think Gaddafi is right, I think the people have been given hallucination pills, that's why they're rebeling.

I fully support the War on Hallucination Drugs.

[Sir Comradical]

The world is not a series of barricades where revolutionaries have to be on one side or the other. In a civil war where imperialism intervenes, which is what is happening in Libya, it's possible to be against the imperialists as well as against both sides in the civil war.

I have not talked about abstract entities at all. Socialist Action's line is that the demonstrators who initially came out, before the rebellion was co-opted by the TNC and NATO, were and are the legitimate anti-imperialist force in Libya, and their return as a force would require a fight against both Gaddafi and the TNC. This is not "the Libyan people" at all, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Fair point. However the demonstrators that came out initially are no longer relevant. Why? Because the fight has morphed into NATO/Rebels vs. Libyan Army.


Also: "we all want NATO to be defeated here" is practically a delusional statement. NATO's air capabilities are NOT going to be beaten militarily by Gaddafi, and anyone who based their strategies on that would lose. What the antiwar movement wants to do is to break the political backing of support for the intervention in the NATO countries, so that as the political and economic costs of the war rise, they are forced to call it off. Things would change if there were boots on the ground, in that an occupation can be defeated by a much smaller force, but a no-fly zone cannot. The only thing Gaddafi can do is wait NATO out.

"What the antiwar movement wants to do is to break the political backing of support for the intervention in the NATO countries". Agreed. However this position isn't mutually exclusive to what I'm saying, which is that the only entity in this current conflict that is in a position to fight NATO is the Libyan Army. In the current conflict the Libyan Army are fighting an anti-imperialist war.

A NATO defeat would mean that they'd fail to meet their objectives. Their objective is to overthrow the Libyan government. The only thing that stands in the way of their imperialist objectives for Libya is the Libyan Army. Hence 'Victory to Gaddafi' is a legitimate slogan for now.

[Sir Comradical]

Was the law of value in action in Gaddafi's Libya? True or false? Is production for profit? Did foreign corporations make money off Libyan workers?

Right. So if a country engages in commodity production, we shouldn't call for it's military defense against imperialist aggression?

[bcbm]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-cannibalism-rape-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

Sensationalist?

the point is not that they are not doing these things but to call them "disgusting forms of mayhem not seen since the contras and mujahadin" is sensationalist because sadly these things are common place and we have seen a horrifying amount of them since the 80s.

i think it is interesting actually that a lot of the people use these atrocities as evidence to not support the rebels, while supporting the rebels in iraq and afghanistan who have used many of the same, and worse, methods.

[KC]

This thread is absolutely fucking ridiculous, pardon me if I tl;dr 5 pages of trash, but really? The pseudo-anti-imperialist bloc are now framing this as a Qadaffi vs. the Imperialists? What the fuck, how does that even make sense? Or is the Arab League and the Italian government "anti-imperialist" now?

This is an inter-imperialist fight for the political and economic control of Libya's oil, among other things, and you want to frame this in such simplistic, nationalistic terms? Who was it again that wrote out against siding with one nation's bourgeoisie against anothers' during an interimperialist conflict in the name of anti-imperialism?

And yet we have the typical fake anti-imperialists parading around using Bush logic ("Yer with us or with Saddam" - now Clinton and Obama's logic). This yet again shows the height of stupidity of the so-called "anti-imperialists" who are now openly siding with Italy and other imperialist allies in this conflict. How fucking pitiful. I wonder how many posts it will be before one of these morons accuses me of "objectively siding with the imperialists" and posting a picture of mutilated Libyan babies killed by NATO followed by proclaiming popular support through a photo of a large pro-Qadaffi demonstration. Christ.

[RadioRaheem84]

How could you interpret it as such? Gaddafi needs to go but the NTC sounds like a much worse opponent for the legitimate rebel movement to face.

[KC]

How could you interpret it as such? Gaddafi needs to go but the NTC sounds like a much worse opponent for the legitimate rebel movement to face.

Really? This is how bankrupt fake imperialists now have become theoretically, and how blatantly they show their opportunism? Qadaffi is "better" than the NTC? Italian imperialism is "better" than French imperialism? Sounds like the CP's line in supporting the "better" democrats in the "fight against neoconservatism". Maybe we should base our political support on whose massacres are "better" and who is "less" brutal, right?

It's the same opportunist logic. Popular frontism in its concrete expression means submission to this or that section of capital. It's crap, and it has proven to be so over the past 100 years that it has been attempted.

[Charlie Ceausescu]

Hands off Gadhafi!

[RadioRaheem84]

Really? This is how bankrupt fake imperialists now have become theoretically, and how blatantly they show their opportunism? Qadaffi is "better" than the NTC? Italian imperialism is "better" than French imperialism? Sounds like the CP's line in supporting the "better" democrats in the "fight against neoconservatism". Maybe we should base our political support on whose massacres are "better" and who is "less" brutal, right?

It's the same opportunist logic. Popular frontism in its concrete expression means submission to this or that section of capital. It's crap, and it has proven to be so over the past 100 years that it has been attempted.

I think the point is that it is far better for a real rebel movement to struggle against Gaddafi than the Western backed NTC.

[LegendZ]

Gaddafi is a dictator no doubt about that. But he is better than the rebels who are working for the oil cartels, besides those rebels are racist at least that is what I have heard.

Gaddafi is being demonised by western media , the media first told us that Gaddafi is using rape as a weapon now we hear that the theory is a complete falseAt this point we've heard everything about everyone from everywhere. The truth of the matter is. We DON'T know what's happening in Libya. The only support we should show is for the workers who are being killed from both sides of the conflict.

[CynicalIdealist]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_io3Q-rUp0k0/SRT-JjKa5LI/AAAAAAAAAvY/23MSr0crqVM/s400/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

[t.shonku]

At this point we've heard everything about everyone from everywhere. The truth of the matter is. We DON'T know what's happening in Libya. The only support we should show is for the workers who are being killed from both sides of the conflict.


Yah you are right to some extent!

But I don't believe CNN and BBC

As far as Gaddafi goes well he is a maniac and I don't like him but at the same time I don't want Libya to become a NATO outpost because this will help spread imperialism in the area.Let us face facts the working class there is so unorganised that we better give up hope on their chances of uprising and hope that NATO fails in it's mission , after NATO is gone maybe the working class will have a chance to take on the weakened Gaddafi ( I very much doubt that will happen).


Anyways NATO loosing is best for our communist cause so let Gaddafi win ! choose the lesser evil savy mate!

[KC]

I don't want Libya to become a NATO outpost because this will help spread imperialism in the area.So Libya currently isn't part of the capitalist system? Or capitalism isn't in its imperialist stage? And NATO is now an imperialist power in its own right? It can make entire countries into outposts?



Anyways NATO loosing is best for our communist cause so let Gaddafi win ! choose the lesser evil savy mate!

lolwut

[Jose Gracchus]

Right. So if a country engages in commodity production, we shouldn't call for it's military defense against imperialist aggression?

The claim, a factual one, is that Libya was somehow a society operating under a "socialist" or "communist" program, ostensibly under Marxist criteria. I was replying to your compatriots specific idiocy here in that claim, not making any statement about the general proposition you bring up here with the aim of strawmanning me.

[W1N5T0N]

do you support rapists and mass murderers for resisting the police's authority in society? Actually, you don't have to answer that, because you just fucking said you did.

Question: Do you support oppressive brainwashing islamist regimes, where one tribe holds the government functions and lives like a parasite from the people, killing dissenters? Oh wait, you did. And look, I didn't even have to swear to plainly put down my opinion. :tt2:

[khad]

Question: Do you support oppressive brainwashing islamist regimes, where one tribe holds the government functions and lives like a parasite from the people, killing dissenters? Oh wait, you did. And look, I didn't even have to swear to plainly put down my opinion. :tt2:

No, I don't support Islamists. That means the rebels.


In his revelation during the BBC interview, Mr Shayler gave details of an attempt on Gaddafi in early March 1996. Colonel Gadaffi was travelling in a motorcade of Mercedes limousines and an ambulance was cruising along an avenue lined with bystanders in Sirte, a city east of Tripoli.

After repeated assassination attempts, his paranoia and unpredictability had made him one of the most difficult targets in the world. He travelled only in a convoy, periodically ordering it to stop to allow him to change transport. A trick invented by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as early as 1970 when he was still Mr Deputy.

Abd al-Muhaymen, a Libyan fundamentalist who had trained and fought in Afghanistan, thus having access to CIA and British intelligence who organised the Afghan Mujahedine operations at the time, was in charge of assassinating Gaddafi.

Mr Shayler said Abd al-Muhaymen was to detonate a bomb under Gaddafi's car, but the bomb went off under the wrong car killing his body guards and civilian bystanders.

The account differs from that of a Libyan dissident group who sent a fax to the Saudi owned Al-Hyat news paper in London claiming that the attack was carried out with Kalshinkovs and rocket grenades (on the wrong car). - The Libyan dissents re in the habit of exaggerating.

However, the timing and location are much the same and no reports of a similar incident in the area at the time have leaked out of Libya.

Abd elMuhaymen belongs the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG). Several had escaped just months before when the Abu Salim prison in Tripoli was stormed by Islamic militants.

The IFG presented the most serious challenge Gadaffi had faced since he took power in 1969.

And in 1989, Colonel Gaddafi described them as `` a plague, cancer and Aids,'' that threaten society.

[W1N5T0N]

I was addressing Obs, actually :)

but since you brought up the point, i think Gaddaffi can be considered pretty hardline fundamentalist, right?

[brigadista]

and where is the oil infrastructure located?

Yeah the east

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-libyan-oil-infrastructure-2011-2

[RadioRaheem84]

I was addressing Obs, actually :)

but since you brought up the point, i think Gaddaffi can be considered pretty hardline fundamentalist, right?

Hard-line fundamentalist? He is secular.

[bcbm]

No, I don't support Islamists.

so who do you support in afghanistan and iraq?

[RadioRaheem84]

so who do you support in afghanistan and iraq?

There are a lot of secular forces that are against the occupation. Most of the ones fighting though are Islamist.

[khad]

I was addressing Obs, actually :)

but since you brought up the point, i think Gaddaffi can be considered pretty hardline fundamentalist, right?
The hardline fundies are the Islamic Fighting Group animals who've been trying to overthrow the Libyan government ever since the Afghan war of the 80s.

[Turinbaar]

The hardline fundies are the Islamic Fighting Group animals who've been trying to overthrow the Libyan government ever since the Afghan war of the 80s.

Any squabble between Ghadaffi and islamic fundamentalists is best viewed as sectarian infighting. It was Ghadaffi who created the Islamic Legion in the early 70's in order to create an Islamic sub-saharan Empire, and it was this legion that gave the Janjiweed of Sudan their career start. Any defense of Ghadaffi as a secularist and an enemy of hard line Islam is laughable.

[Sir Comradical]

Any squabble between Ghadaffi and islamic fundamentalists is best viewed as sectarian infighting. It was Ghadaffi who created the Islamic Legion in the early 70's in order to create an Islamic sub-saharan Empire, and it was this legion that gave the Janjiweed of Sudan their career start. Any defense of Ghadaffi as a secularist and an enemy of hard line Islam is laughable.

Wow, link?

[Sir Comradical]

The claim, a factual one, is that Libya was somehow a society operating under a "socialist" or "communist" program, ostensibly under Marxist criteria. I was replying to your compatriots specific idiocy here in that claim, not making any statement about the general proposition you bring up here with the aim of strawmanning me.

Compatriots?

[Turinbaar]

Wow, link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Legion

[Crux]

Hard-line fundamentalist? He is secular.
Nope, he is quite religious, however he is anti-clerical. A smart move for any political leader if you can't win over the priesthood.

[RadioRaheem84]

Nope, he is quite religious, however he is anti-clerical. A smart move for any political leader if you can't win over the priesthood.

But what about Libya? I was referring to his politics.