Gaddafi threatens attacks in europe

[Threetune]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-europe-20110702-1gvmz.html


Our response should be, ‘Defeat for Imperialism’!

[Kamos]

Well, in one thing he's right. He's being attacked by the NATO, why couldn't he retaliate?

That being said, nobody's fight is any more justified as a result of this.

[Per Levy]

A defiant Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families" unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

so he "plans" to attack civilists(homes, families) and not military bases, goverment buildings and the likes, and thats supposed anti imperialist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What a disgusting, anti-worker thing to say.

Some people need to take a step back from their beloved anti-imperialism and consider the consequences of what he has said. You can bet that if this was a(nother) Capitalist politician saying these things, the same people would be up in arms.

[OhYesIdid]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Crux]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-europe-20110702-1gvmz.html


Our response should be, ‘Defeat for Imperialism’!
Oh depth you have. Well trolled sir. And indeed, defeat imperialism, defeat it's very recent reject Gaddafi, victory to the revolution.

[Fulanito de Tal]

"These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle ... to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes," he said.

Makes complete sense to me. If the civilians in Europe don't want to feel the repercussions of invading a nearby country, then maybe they should take control of their government. The Libyans being bombed sure didn't ask NATO to bomb them.

[Tim Finnegan]

Our response should be, ‘Defeat for Imperialism’!
I prefer "Go home, Muammar, you're drunk".

[Martin Blank]

So, let me see if I understand this: Gaddafi, who has been attacked by NATO under the pretense that he attacks his opponents in Libya and their families, at home and at work, has responded to the bombings by ... threatening to attack his opponents in Europe and their families, at home and at work?

I will say one thing about him: At least he's consistent.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Makes complete sense to me. If the civilians in Europe don't want to feel the repercussions of invading a nearby country, then maybe they should take control of their government. The Libyans being bombed sure didn't ask NATO to bomb them.

I think Fidel and Chavez should begin taking reprisals on the civilian population of Florida. Nuke Tampa and St. Pete! Obliterate Sarasota! Utter and complete destruction to Jacksonville!

Where do these trolls keep coming from?

[Kenco Smooth]

Because the workers under imperialism are always and without exception the agents of imperialism. Duh. :rolleyes:

Also lets suppose for just a second that every individual in Europe is an imperialist agent. A series of successful attacks against European citizens will result in any remnant of the social order of Libya being ground into dust a thousand times over. This tactic isn't even a good one if we accept it's preposterous and disgusting logical premise.

[Dogs On Acid]

I honestly can't develop an opinion on this... Mixed feelings.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Attacks on families, civilians, etc? That isn't anti-imperialist. That is terrorism.

[thefinalmarch]

I honestly can't develop an opinion on this... Mixed feelings.
Bourgeois head of state threatens to attack "homes, offices and families" in mainland Europe, which would certainly involve an increased death toll for the working class.
"I've got mixed feelings about this, guys."

Why are you even viewing this positively in any way? I know that there's a high chance this is merely meant to be symbolic gesture in some way, but Qadaffi is a fucking lunatic. Give him a large enough military, and he would certainly attempt an assault on Europe.

[Dogs On Acid]

Bourgeois head of state threatens to attack "homes, offices and families" in mainland Europe, which would certainly involve an increased death toll for the working class.
"I've got mixed feelings about this, guys."

Why are you even viewing this positively in any way? I know that there's a high chance this is merely meant to be symbolic gesture in some way, but Qadaffi is a fucking lunatic. Give him a large enough military, and he would certainly attempt an assault on Europe.

Did I say I was viewing this positively? GTFO

His country and his people are being bombed to shit by an outside superpower, what do you expect him to do? Sit back and watch?

[bailey_187]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-europe-20110702-1gvmz.html


Our response should be, ‘Defeat for Imperialism’!

hmm, id rather not cheer for the possibility of being blown up when im on the bus. thats just me tho, crazy, i know

[Dogs On Acid]

hmm, id rather not cheer for the possibility of being blown up when im on the bus. thats just me tho, crazy, i know

Just because it's you? War is indiscriminate. His people suffered and Europeans didn't give a shit.

[RadioRaheem84]

I have mixed feelings too. I think Gaddafi is being foolish if he thinks that bombing civilians in the EU is going to get people on his side.

But at the same time, NATO is indiscriminately bombing Libya and killing members of his family, including children. If Gaddafi had said military targets, then I could see some retaliation as justified but what will that accomplish in the long run except for more retaliation.

[Dogs On Acid]

^^ this

[Tim Finnegan]

Just because it's you? War is indiscriminate. His people suffered and Europeans didn't give a shit.
So, what, it's just a cry for attention? :confused:

[bailey_187]

Just because it's you? War is indiscriminate. His people suffered and Europeans didn't give a shit.

what point are u even trying to make tho u dickhead

im just a privaliged european yadayah

[☭The Revolution☭]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/82c9c80bb6.jpg

[Dogs On Acid]

Well Gaddafi's idea is probably: if he retaliates then Europeans will be frightened of him and take anti-war stances so it doesn't happen again.

Not sure if it will make Europeans do that or turn them into a warmongering population ready to "kill our enemy" like what happened to the Americans after 9/11.

[Fulanito de Tal]

If Cuba was invaded by the US, I wouldn't expect anything less than every single rocket in Cuba to come flying to Florida. If I don't die, then I will have to take a moment to rejoice that I survived. It's war...don't expect for the defending side to not retaliate. If Libya invaded France, everyone in France would be asking to bomb the fuck out of Libya, regardless of civilian casualties. Libya didn't even do anything of the same scale to NATO countries and it is getting bombed.

Still, Libya doesn't have the means capable to fight back at NATO through conventional methods, so it seems to be thinking about infiltrating through other means. If your family was killed by a NATO missile, I would imagine that you would consider it.

[bailey_187]

certain man on here are actually mental

have fun basement dwelling

im actually sad for some of u creepy weirdos

[Dogs On Acid]

If Cuba was invaded by the US, I wouldn't expect anything less than every single rocket in Cuba to come flying to Florida. If I don't die, then I will have to take a moment to rejoice that I survived. It's war...don't expect for the defending side to not retaliate. If Libya invaded France, everyone in France would be asking to bomb the fuck out of Libya, regardless of civilian casualties. Libya didn't even do anything of the same scale to NATO countries and it is getting bombed.

Still, Libya doesn't have the means capable to fight back at NATO through conventional methods, so it seems to be thinking about infiltrating through other means. If your family was killed by a NATO missile, I would imagine that you would consider it.

Fucking right. Some people don't see both sides of the story.

[Tim Finnegan]

If Cuba was invaded by the US, I wouldn't expect anything less than every single rocket in Cuba to come flying to Florida. If I don't die, then I will have to take a moment to rejoice that I survived. It's war...don't expect for the defending side to not retaliate. If Libya invaded France, everyone in France would be asking to bomb the fuck out of Libya, regardless of civilian casualties. Libya didn't even do anything of the same scale to NATO countries and it is getting bombed.

Still, Libya doesn't have the means capable to fight back at NATO through conventional methods, so it seems to be thinking about infiltrating through other means. If your family was killed by a NATO missile, I would imagine that you would consider it.
Does the term "revolutionary defeatism" mean anything to you?

[danyboy27]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-europe-20110702-1gvmz.html


Our response should be: wow that guy is a jerk

Fixed.

I dont see why working class families in europe and america should pay with their blood for the greed and stupidity of their bankers and corrupted politicians.

anyone who condone this kind of bullshit is an anti-working class assole.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Does the term "revolutionary defeatism" mean anything to you?

If the revolutionary side chose to give up the fight in order to better organize, then that would make sense. No leading organization in this conflict is for socialism, anarchy, communism, etc.

Before I get labeled the pro-terrorist attack on Europe person, I want to make clear that am NOT advocating for any terrorist attack anywhere.

I only find it completely understandable from their perspective, just like I expect anyone in the world to retaliate to any offensive attacks, be it from another person or group.

[Tim Finnegan]

If the revolutionary side chose to give up the fight in order to better organize, then that would make sense. No leading organization in this conflict is for socialism, anarchy, communism, etc.
So your answer to that question is "no"?

Perhaps you should have Wiki'd it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#Revolutionary_Defeatism) before answering...

[Fulanito de Tal]

So your answer to that question is "no"?

Perhaps you should have Wiki'd it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#Revolutionary_Defeatism) before answering...


Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.

That's what I meant by:

If the revolutionary side chose to give up the fight in order to better organize, then that would make sense. No leading organization in this conflict is for socialism, anarchy, communism, etc.

I really don't want to argue this with you on this thread so it gets high jacked by our back-and-forth. We could start another thread or go private if you want. It's your call.

Back to Gaddafi et al.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If Cuba launched all its rockets into Florida in the event of a hypothetical revolution, that would show the bourgeois, nationalist side of the Cuban regime. State and world wars are always and everywhere a bourgeois phenomenon. Socialists don't start state wars.

[bcbm]

anti-imperialism is built on the death of workers, why not add a few more?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Did I say I was viewing this positively? GTFO

His country and his people are being bombed to shit by an outside superpower, what do you expect him to do? Sit back and watch?

http://bearcat8.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/911.jpg

Well what did you expect us to do, just sit back and watch?

It's pretty unbelievable that people would ever justify targetting legions of the very people we're trying to recruit, on the basis of "they didn't do anything to stop the unilateral actions on the part of their government, in an international assembly that they have absolutely no control over." (especially in EU-dominated Europe, where many powerbrokers are accountable to no one).

Striking Europe is second best, second only to striking the USA, a nation where only 40 million people vote and hardly anyone could find Libya on an unmarked map.

[scarletghoul]

Obviously attacks against civilians are completely wrong. I don't see why people are so surprised at this though,, its what happens when a country is attacked, and the blame for this belongs to the imperialists who are attacking libya. Attacks on German and Japanese civilians in world war 2 were terrible, but ultimately the fascists are to blame for them.

Anyway if only RevLefters would care about the 100s of actual dead civilians in tripoli as much as they care about hypothetical attacks on europe

[black magick hustla]

history is funny because so many communists spilled their blood to stall capitalist wars and here u have the new generation of internet stalimaos choosing sides. the line is clearly drawn its called the class line

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Bourgeois war is bourgeois war. I understand that if one nation bombs another, they will likely retaliate, but it doesn't mean I will cheerlead for it. I don't wanna see people dying at the hand of bombs, whether its in Libya, France, Britain, Spain or anywhere else. Fuck the bourgeoisie and fuck their wars, I am a communist and the only thing I wanna see dead is the economic order that needs wars to sustain itself.

[thefinalmarch]

Did I say I was viewing this positively? GTFO
Not explicitly, but having "mixed feelings" refers to being torn between both sides of the argument. That is, the affirmative (in favor of) and the negative (against) sides of the argument. It would be logical to conclude that you viewed part of Qaddafi's threat positively - that is, unless you're redefining English words and terms ad hoc.


His country and his people are being bombed to shit by an outside superpower, what do you expect him to do? Sit back and watch?
No. But the course of action should not involve the slaughter of innocent workers in Europe. What you've just said is actually really fucking stupid, as if the only options open to Qaddafi are sitting back and watching, and murdering innocent civilians. Fucking five star post :rolleyes:

[thefinalmarch]

Anyway if only RevLefters would care about the 100s of actual dead civilians in tripoli as much as they care about hypothetical attacks on europe
What are you on about? We do care about the thousands of dead in Tripoli. The thing is that hypothetical attacks on Europe are very much the topic of this thread. Excuse us for staying on-topic. What arseholes we are, eh?

[AmericanCommie421]

Gaddafi has already has made an assassination attempt on Doc Brown.

[AmericanCommie421]

I think this is ridiculous that he would imply terrorist attacks at all, especially on civilians. This will only worsen the situation and cause more anti-Gaddafi sentiment around the world. If any attacks were to really happen as a result than Gaddafi would have hell broken loose on him and Libya as a whole.

[Sasha]

funny that some of the same users who find this an understandable tactic are the same who again and again decry actual leftist actions on our actual enemies like property destruction or propaganda of the deed as infantile individualist hooliganism

[brigadista]

wait - im no gaddafi supporter but i don't trust the reporting - anyone speak arabic? did he actually say that?

[agnixie]

Didn't the stupid OP post a long thread about the US president somehow being fascist while a) knowing nothing abotu fascism, b) calling every single act of imperialism fascist and c) ignoring the very real fact that Qaddafi's third positionism and european friends are very much the textbook definition of fascism?

You're a troll and a very stupid one at that. That much is obvious. Assuming you're somehow sincere, you're also a bourgeois nationalist, and a useful idiot for fascists. You're probably a third worldist, and let's be fair, the end result of this tends to be anti-revolutionary fascism.

[Threetune]

As previously and often said, Marxism-Leninism will not join in with imperialist and ‘left’ demonization, scapegoating and “condemnations” of imperialisms victims. The responsibility and guilt for all the mayhem of the planet lies squarely with imperialist economic crisis warmongering. It is not necessary either to support the ‘green book’ bourgeois nationalism of Gaddafi, precisely because the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.

Without their splits set-backs and defeats there will be no end to the imperialist slaughter “interventions” against “rogue states” like North Korea Libya, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia and any others deemed out of step or rebellious. It is utterly pointless urging workers onto pacifist ‘Stop the War’ marches pretending to defend workers from ‘terrorist’ attack by ‘condemning’ all the combatants EQUALY, when the villain of the peace is identified as imperialism. It is the foulest hypocrisy posturing about defence of western workers from desperate frustrated third world retaliation and never raising even a slogan of defeat against the source and continuance of slaughter-imperialism. As if there was any equivalence of violence anyway.

The working class in the big imperialist centres, if they are ever going to rise a revolutionary challenges to the imposition of the ‘crisis’ cuts in living conditions, will need to understand, and are beginning to understand, that the Taliban, IRA, Al Qaeda (http://search.alot.com/web?q=Al+Qaeda&pr=tbar&client_id=59A412D001CBFA25004054D4&install_time=2011-04-13T21%3A54%3A28%2B0000&src_id=30009&camp_id=957&tb_version=1.0.7000.4%28B%29),and Hamas etc are not just some bad bastards who role out of bed and decide to “bomb a bus”. And all these, and similar nationalist traditions which are a million miles from Marxism are not going to break their nihilism with only cringing ‘left’ sanctimonious, moralising hypocrisy for an example of ‘struggle’.

Revisionist cover-up of the Chinese role in the Libya attack and Trotskyism’s predicable cheerleading of every reactionary reb “freedom” demonstration are also a million miles from the Leninist call for DEFEAT of imperialism, without which there is no future for anyone.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

funny that some of the same users who find this an understandable tactic are the same who again and again decry actual leftist actions on our actual enemies like property destruction or propaganda of the deed as infantile individualist hooliganism

Thats actually a good point.

If you riot and burn shit, well, jeez, that just makes us look bad to the workers. However if you threaten to bomb the places where the same workers live, thats all cool because its an anti imperialist war and anything that helps the cause is acceptable (presumably this means whatever class struggle the anarchists feel they were engaging in as less important than the struggle of gaddffi to resist imperialism/keep his own personal disgusting dictatorship alive.)

That said it is ironic that there is such similarity between some anarchist tactics and stalinist ones. Namely the lack of a class perspective or involvement. :p

[danyboy27]

As previously and often said, Marxism-Leninism will not join in with imperialist and ‘left’ demonization, scapegoating and “condemnations” of imperialisms victims. The responsibility and guilt for all the mayhem of the planet lies squarely with imperialist economic crisis warmongering. It is not necessary either to support the ‘green book’ bourgeois nationalism of Gaddafi, precisely because the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.

Without their splits set-backs and defeats there will be no end to the imperialist slaughter “interventions” against “rogue states” like North Korea Libya, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia and any others deemed out of step or rebellious. It is utterly pointless urging workers onto pacifist ‘Stop the War’ marches pretending to defend workers from ‘terrorist’ attack by ‘condemning’ all the combatants EQUALY, when the villain of the peace is identified as imperialism. It is the foulest hypocrisy posturing about defence of western workers from desperate frustrated third world retaliation and never raising even a slogan of defeat against the source and continuance of slaughter-imperialism. As if there was any equivalence of violence anyway.

The working class in the big imperialist centres, if they are ever going to rise a revolutionary challenges to the imposition of the ‘crisis’ cuts in living conditions, will need to understand, and are beginning to understand, that the Taliban, IRA, Al Qaeda (http://search.alot.com/web?q=Al+Qaeda&pr=tbar&client_id=59A412D001CBFA25004054D4&install_time=2011-04-13T21%3A54%3A28%2B0000&src_id=30009&camp_id=957&tb_version=1.0.7000.4%28B%29),and Hamas etc are not just some bad bastards who role out of bed and decide to “bomb a bus”. And all these, and similar nationalist traditions which are a million miles from Marxism are not going to break their nihilism with only cringing ‘left’ sanctimonious, moralising hypocrisy for an example of ‘struggle’.

Revisionist cover-up of the Chinese role in the Libya attack and Trotskyism’s predicable cheerleading of every reactionary reb “freedom” demonstration are also a million miles from the Leninist call for DEFEAT of imperialism, without which there is no future for anyone.

Lets sum up this wall of text into something more clear and simple for everyone.
Killing civilian is revolutionary when the aim is to defeat imperialism.
hup derp troskyst and left come are threehugger and will not change anything in this world,

Alquaeida and hamas on the other hand are changing this world by killing civies, its allright beccause it fufill a goal of fighing imperialism!

its creazy how well spoken peoples like you are able to hide behind your nice facade, gobbels would be damn proud.

[W1N5T0N]

Did I say I was viewing this positively? GTFO

His country and his people are being bombed to shit by an outside superpower, what do you expect him to do? Sit back and watch?

Dont forget, he is also bombing his own people to shit.

[Imposter Marxist]

It really irks me when something happens to(Or about) an anti-imperialist and the thread is filled with people going: "Hows that for your beloved anti-imperialist hero man! Har har har!" Which goes to show they don't really understand our position. Its really annoying.

[Dogs On Acid]

The problem of consensus among the left is the same with atheists. We tend to be individual thinkers and end up bickering amongst ourselves.

[agnixie]

Lets sum up this wall of text into something more clear and simple for everyone.
Killing civilian is revolutionary when the aim is to defeat imperialism.
hup derp troskyst and left come are threehugger and will not change anything in this world,

Alquaeida and hamas on the other hand are changing this world by killing civies, its allright beccause it fufill a goal of fighing imperialism!

its creazy how well spoken peoples like you are able to hide behind your nice facade, gobbels would be damn proud.

I also seem to recall the party line last month being that Al Qaeda was evil and on the side of the rebels.

[RadioRaheem84]

Will everyone just pipe down about the notion that people here are OK with Gaddafi bombing civilians! The level of "leftier than thou" over the top sanctimonious bullshit has reached massive proportions.

Bourgoise wars are extremely irrational and Gaddafi "feels" that he must retaliate. It's a foolish move but what do you expect to happen when an aggressive NATO campaign is destroying his country. I haven't really read anyone in here except the OP really go ga-ga over the thought of bombs flying over Paris.

It's an unfortunate outcome that could happen when someone unjustifiably attacks your country. I don't think saying this means that someone wants France to be bombed.

But all this huffy puffy, omg, omg, omg, I cannot believe you guys could say that, Gaddafi is a jerk, BS talk is nauseating!

[RadioRaheem84]

Alquaeida and hamas on the other hand are changing this world by killing civies, its allright beccause it fufill a goal of fighing imperialism!


This is getting extremely ridiculous and over the top.

Where are the moderators? This idiotic notion that anyone who has an inkling of support for the Libyan state to defeat and obvious and gross imperialistic attack is somehow a monster that would justify civilians casualties at any cost is preposterous!

Please, get a new line.

Why are you guys so damn shocked that Gaddafi would even hint at something like what he said? I see that you guys are more shocked at him saying this, then I have ever heard ANY of you say anything about NATO bombing Libya back to the stone age, or anything about the rebel movement beheading people or pillaging towns. Instead many of you DEFEND the rebel movement or excuse it by saying the movement is not monolithic or Gaddafi brought on this violence (including NATO) on his own.


Direct you real outrage on the perpetrators and instigators of this war and the gross and dangerous outcomes that are coming out as a result.

[danyboy27]

we are not shocked or surprised, we are disgusted by peoples like threetune who support such actions beccause its seem somehow justified beccause it would be an anti-imperialist move.

we can have an understanding with those who are willing to explain rationally why this whole thing is happening, but dont expect us to be all dandy with those who think its cool that civies will get blown up beccause this is anti-imperialist.

just look at the reaction of the op on the article, first post of the thread.

[agnixie]

This is getting extremely ridiculous and over the top.

Where are the moderators? This idiotic notion that anyone who has an inkling of support for the Libyan state to defeat and obvious and gross imperialistic attack is somehow a monster that would justify civilians casualties at any cost is preposterous!

Clearly you didn't read the OP.



Why are you guys so damn shocked that Gaddafi would even hint at something like what he said? I see that you guys are more shocked at him saying this, then I have ever heard ANY of you say anything about NATO bombing Libya back to the stone age, or anything about the rebel movement beheading people or pillaging towns. Instead many of you DEFEND the rebel movement or excuse it by saying the movement is not monolithic or Gaddafi brought on this violence (including NATO) on his own.

That's nowhere near the stone age.



Direct you real outrage on the perpetrators and instigators of this war and the gross and dangerous outcomes that are coming out as a result.

From both sides. The lybian people being caught in the middle doesn't mean either active side is worthy of support, and the victory of either is a defeat for the workers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd say that Qaddafi bears just as much blame for this grotesque war as NATO.

Granted, he's not the gross caricature of modern Capitalism that the US and NATO are, and so is not as easy a punchbag target, but he is just as harmful to the working class in Libya as NATO and their silly little NTC are.

[danyboy27]

Killing civies would probably be the best way for gadafi to get swarmed by foreign troops. it would justify any full scale assault on libya, and would justify even more libyan civilians deaths.


IF he decide to just stay put and lay low for a while, he might stand a chance to get out of this mess alive with some sort of negociation, and even leave with a truckload of money, sound like a good deal to me.

he either take his small part of the cake, or its the pinebox. There is no way this guy will ever be able to rule libya like he used to do.

[RadioRaheem84]

Clearly you didn't read the OP.



By ME : I haven't really read anyone in here except the OP really go ga-ga over the thought of bombs flying over Paris.



That's nowhere near the stone age.


Oh gee, I'm sorry NATO is not bombing Libya enough for Gaddafi to justifiably complain!



From both sides. The lybian people being caught in the middle doesn't mean either active side is worthy of support, and the victory of either is a defeat for the workers.


Who began this war in a unjustifiable fashion and armed factions of the rebel movement that escalated the fighting? Who is bombing the country's infrastructure, murdering their leaders and their children, killing civilians and selling off the oil to other nation without having even won half the country? NATO and the precious rebel movement that is who.


If a bunch of cops and a rival gang came to a known gang members house and started firing on it killing people inside, including family for no good reason, except maybe a bunch of lies fed to the cops by the rival gang, and that gang leader being bombarded fired a bullet back that hit a civilian standing idly by watching. Would you be more upset at the gang leader or the cops?

This is situation in undoubtedly the result of imperialist aggression. Anything that comes out of the aggression is retaliation.

I mean what does that say about our outlook if a bunch of us are shocked and appalled that someone would dare strike us back after we're (our governments) bombing the shit out of them!

Gasp! They actually want to strike back? How dare them!

Well what did you think was going to happen?

[Thirsty Crow]

Bourgoise wars are extremely irrational and Gaddafi "feels" that he must retaliate. It's a foolish move but what do you expect to happen when an aggressive NATO campaign is destroying his country. I haven't really read anyone in here except the OP really go ga-ga over the thought of bombs flying over Paris.

Somehow, I don't think that he cares for his "country" much. And the same goes for "rebel" leadership.
Also, I don't think it'd be logical to expect a retaliatory attack. Rhetorics and gestures, yes, but to think that this man would be willing to launch an assault against civilian tragets in Europe is to think that he is a suicidal lunatic.

[Threetune]

Just for the sake of clarity, please copy any and every statement of support for Gaddafi or his national bourgeois government by the OP.

[magicme]

As I live in Europe I'm not happy about the idea of Gadaffi bombing it but as has been said, it's the type of thing that's to be expected when capitalists start fighting each other for resources. Mind you, it wouldn't be death to imperialism if the Gadaffi regime did do what it's said that it's thinking about doing, it would be just the excuse NATO needs to invade the place Iraq style.

At the moment it would be difficult for David Cameron to send many ground troops to Libya, he promised he wasn't going to do that. If something awful happens in London or whatever all that difficulty goes away and he can send umpteem soldiers to do what the oil companies want.

[Dogs On Acid]

Just for the sake of clarity, please copy any and every statement of support for Gaddafi or his national bourgeois government by the OP.

Doesn't surprise me a Marxist-Leninist saying this,

Secret police are watching you OP

[danyboy27]

Just for the sake of clarity, please copy any and every statement of support for Gaddafi or his national bourgeois government by the OP.


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-europe-20110702-1gvmz.html


Our response should be, ‘Defeat for Imperialism’!


what are we supposed to think of this?

[Threetune]

what are we supposed to think of this?

We know what you think and say, but that’s not what I asked; now show where I support Gaddafi.

[bcbm]

the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.

actually i think you have it backwards, imperialism can only be ended by workers power. the various wars are the outlier in the functioning of imperialist domination, money works much better than bombs in most cases. a defeat in iraq or afghanistan or libya won't do much of anything to set back the imperialist powers. the only way to really challenge this arrangement is to bring down the imperialist powers from within.


The working class in the big imperialist centres, if they are ever going to rise a revolutionary challenges to the imposition of the ‘crisis’ cuts in living conditions, will need to understand, and are beginning to understand, that the Taliban, IRA,Al Qaeda (http://search.alot.com/web?q=Al+Qaeda&pr=tbar&client_id=59A412D001CBFA25004054D4&install_time=2011-04-13T21%3A54%3A28%2B0000&src_id=30009&camp_id=957&tb_version=1.0.7000.4%28B%29),and Hamas etc are not just some bad bastards who role out of bed and decide to “bomb a bus”.


i'm really failing to see the pressing need for workers in the uk or greece or spain or wisconsin to understand the motivations of the taliban in order to fight against austerity.


And all these, and similar nationalist traditions which are a million miles from Marxism are not going to break their nihilism with only cringing ‘left’ sanctimonious, moralising hypocrisy for an example of ‘struggle’.so the people who want to set up theocratic hells that would kill leftists would suddenly do an about face if we provide them a better example of struggle? seems likely.

[agnixie]

If a bunch of cops and a rival gang came to a known gang members house and started firing on it killing people inside, including family for no good reason, except maybe a bunch of lies fed to the cops by the rival gang, and that gang leader being bombarded fired a bullet back that hit a civilian standing idly by watching. Would you be more upset at the gang leader or the cops?
I would be upset at both. The cops are lumpenproletariat and killed a bystander, the gang members are lumpenbourgeoisie and also killed bystanders. I wouldn't go about how a victory for either side is a victory for us. You should learn to pick examples that make your point if you want us not to find both sides in the wrong.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Repfucked twice in a week. That is quite an accomplishment!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Even if we accept the questionable premise that we should expect a leader defending his country against 'invasion' to come up with such a statement, that doesn't detract from the content of the statement.

I challenge anybody to qualify the Qaddafi statement re: attacks in Europe as anything other than anti-worker, anti-human, terrorist trash.

[Threetune]

Anyway, the only answer to the ‘lefts’ sourer carping excuses for why they NEVER in any of their literature or at any of their meetings ever raise the question of defeat for imperialism is to keep raising the matter, because the revolutionary seizure of power by the working class is self evidently an impossibility and just a silly posture while imperialism holds sway around the world.

It might be expected that this ABC of Marxism-Leninism would be readily understood, supported and advanced by ‘lefts’ who never stop claiming to have the best tactics and strategy for fighting “against austerity” as they put it. The world is boiling over with revolutionary ferment, but you never hear the ‘lefts’ make a revolutionary speech giving it CONSIOUS EXPRESSION, just endless sly argumentations fighting “against austerity” always leaving open the possibility of a reform ‘solution’.The reader just has to do a sweep of the ‘left’ press to see this.

What other response should Marxism-Leninism have to the news about Gadaffi attacking the west except ‘Defeat for Imperialism’! and then follow up as I did with:
“Marxism-Leninism will not join in with imperialist and ‘left’ demonization, scapegoating and “condemnations” of imperialisms victims. The responsibility and guilt for all the mayhem of the planet lies squarely with imperialist economic crisis warmongering. It is not necessary either to support the ‘green book’ bourgeois nationalism of Gaddafi, precisely because the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.”
Lets here some revolutionary speeches.

[Threetune]

Even if we accept the questionable premise that we should expect a leader defending his country against 'invasion' to come up with such a statement, that doesn't detract from the content of the statement.

I challenge anybody to qualify the Qaddafi statement re: attacks in Europe as anything other than anti-worker, anti-human, terrorist trash.

Now qualify the UN, NATO, Brit, French, US ect, statements as being anything but greater, much much, greater terrorist trash than Gaddafi’s puny offerings. And then add all your “anti-worker, anti-human", terrorist trash blitzing of the last twenty years. Just what kind of anti-imperialist are you?

[bcbm]

Anyway, the only answer to the ‘lefts’ sourer carping excuses for why they NEVER in any of their literature or at any of their meetings ever raise the question of defeat for imperialism is to keep raising the matter, because the revolutionary seizure of power by the working class is self evidently an impossibility and just a silly posture while imperialism holds sway around the world.

actually i think you have it backwards, imperialism can only be ended by workers power. the various wars are the outlier in the functioning of imperialist domination, money works much better than bombs in most cases. a defeat in iraq or afghanistan or libya won't do much of anything to set back the imperialist powers. the only way to really challenge this arrangement is to bring down the imperialist powers from within.


It might be expected that this ABC of Marxism-Leninism would be readily understood, supported and advanced by ‘lefts’ who never stop claiming to have the best tactics and strategy for fighting “against austerity” as they put it. The world is boiling over with revolutionary ferment, but you never hear the ‘lefts’ make a revolutionary speech giving it CONSIOUS EXPRESSION, just endless sly argumentations fighting “against austerity” always leaving open the possibility of a reform ‘solution’.The reader just has to do a sweep of the ‘left’ press to see this.

champion a despot in a struggle between two bourgeois states while glibly dismissing the struggles of the working class and the pro-revolutionaries participating in them- this is a strategy for victory.

[Pretty Flaco]

Gaddafi is a fuckin lunatic.

[Threetune]

Gaddafi is a fuckin lunatic.

Thanks telling us.

[danyboy27]

Anyway, the only answer to the ‘lefts’ sourer carping excuses for why they NEVER in any of their literature or at any of their meetings ever raise the question of defeat for imperialism is to keep raising the matter, because the revolutionary seizure of power by the working class is self evidently an impossibility and just a silly posture while imperialism holds sway around the world.

It might be expected that this ABC of Marxism-Leninism would be readily understood, supported and advanced by ‘lefts’ who never stop claiming to have the best tactics and strategy for fighting “against austerity” as they put it. The world is boiling over with revolutionary ferment, but you never hear the ‘lefts’ make a revolutionary speech giving it CONSIOUS EXPRESSION, just endless sly argumentations fighting “against austerity” always leaving open the possibility of a reform ‘solution’.The reader just has to do a sweep of the ‘left’ press to see this.

What other response should Marxism-Leninism have to the news about Gadaffi attacking the west except ‘Defeat for Imperialism’! and then follow up as I did with:
“Marxism-Leninism will not join in with imperialist and ‘left’ demonization, scapegoating and “condemnations” of imperialisms victims. The responsibility and guilt for all the mayhem of the planet lies squarely with imperialist economic crisis warmongering. It is not necessary either to support the ‘green book’ bourgeois nationalism of Gaddafi, precisely because the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.”
Lets here some revolutionary speeches.
The main goal of worker worldwide should be to rise up against capitalism. Imperialism is only a symptom of something that much much more bigger called capitalism.

That why adopting an anti-imperialist stance dosnt mean much for most of the workers, beccause it will not change their lives or the conditions in wich they live right now.

yes, imperialistic action should be condemned, but the real target, the real objective should be to get rid of capitalism.

by focusing on the symptom you completely ignore the cause.
Its exactly the same reason why the drug war is failing and the terror war is failing, beccause nobody is adressing the cause.

drinking coughing sirup wont save your ass if you got throat cancer.

[danyboy27]

We know what you think and say, but that’s not what I asked; now show where I support Gaddafi.

By not condemning the threat made by gadafi and just shouting fight imperialism, you did.

and guess what, breaking news: you can condemn both, you know that right?

[punisa]

Is there any reliable transcription from Arabic? I somehow doubt that these were his exact words...

[Threetune]

By not condemning the threat made by gadafi and just shouting fight imperialism, you did.

and guess what, breaking news: you can condemn both, you know that right?

Imperialism has got you going along nicely, swallowing its ‘condemnation’ agenda.
Critique this and let us know how you disagree with it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/pdf/Lenin_Imperialism_the_Highest_Stahe_of_Capitalism. pdf

[Threetune]

Is there any reliable transcription from Arabic? I somehow doubt that these were his exact words...

I don’t know, will have a look. If you find anything let us know.

[bcbm]

Imperialism has got you going along nicely, swallowing its ‘condemnation’ agenda.
Critique this and let us know how you disagree with it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/pdf/Lenin_Imperialism_the_Highest_Stahe_of_Capitalism. pdf

ah, there's the problem: your analysis is stuck in 1916

[Mr. Cervantes]

DanBoy: Fixed.

I dont see why working class families in europe and america should pay with their blood for the greed and stupidity of their bankers and corrupted politicians.

anyone who condone this kind of bullshit is an anti-working class assole.

The working class in Europe and America is half the blame for our obedient ignorant complacency.

It only takes a population's complacency in obedience for insane people to grab the reigns of power in causing havoc for the rest of the world.

If the working class was really competent we would of cleaned house of our governments years ago...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Now qualify the UN, NATO, Brit, French, US ect, statements as being anything but greater, much much, greater terrorist trash than Gaddafi?s puny offerings. And then add all your ?anti-worker, anti-human", terrorist trash blitzing of the last twenty years. Just what kind of anti-imperialist are you?

Are you aware that we condemn acts and statements by NATO, UN, Britain, America etc as terrorist in the same way we condem Gadaffi?

Your line is based on picking sides with whoever the west doesn't like, regardless of how reactionary they are. Communists don't ever takes sides with the bourgeoisie - they want working class liberation, not to take sides with one nation or another. Politics is not a football match.

[danyboy27]

The working class in Europe and America is half the blame for our obedient ignorant complacency.

It only takes a population's complacency in obedience for insane people to grab the reigns of power in causing havoc for the rest of the world.

Blaming the victim eh? We are getting shafted by the rulling class and its our fucking fault if they decide to go on a murderous rampage for ressources? give me a break.

[Crux]

Anyway, the only answer to the ‘lefts’ sourer carping excuses for why they NEVER in any of their literature or at any of their meetings ever raise the question of defeat for imperialism is to keep raising the matter, because the revolutionary seizure of power by the working class is self evidently an impossibility and just a silly posture while imperialism holds sway around the world.

It might be expected that this ABC of Marxism-Leninism would be readily understood, supported and advanced by ‘lefts’ who never stop claiming to have the best tactics and strategy for fighting “against austerity” as they put it. The world is boiling over with revolutionary ferment, but you never hear the ‘lefts’ make a revolutionary speech giving it CONSIOUS EXPRESSION, just endless sly argumentations fighting “against austerity” always leaving open the possibility of a reform ‘solution’.The reader just has to do a sweep of the ‘left’ press to see this.

What other response should Marxism-Leninism have to the news about Gadaffi attacking the west except ‘Defeat for Imperialism’! and then follow up as I did with:
“Marxism-Leninism will not join in with imperialist and ‘left’ demonization, scapegoating and “condemnations” of imperialisms victims. The responsibility and guilt for all the mayhem of the planet lies squarely with imperialist economic crisis warmongering. It is not necessary either to support the ‘green book’ bourgeois nationalism of Gaddafi, precisely because the main and overriding priority for the working class everywhere is the Defeat of imperialism without which there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of workers power and the building of socialism.”
Lets here some revolutionary speeches.
Yes, of course, silly lefts for taking a stand against austerity in Brittain when acting as a mouthpiece of the Libyan regime is our most important task. Your statements are clearly one of a politically isolated individual only breeding on resentment of the left.

Also your interesting view that defeating imperialism is somehow separate from fighting for the working class in your own country just leads you to the political blind alley you find yourself in.

[danyboy27]

Imperialism has got you going along nicely, swallowing its ‘condemnation’ agenda.
Critique this and let us know how you disagree with it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/pdf/Lenin_Imperialism_the_Highest_Stahe_of_Capitalism. pdf

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2161636&postcount=74

Imperialism is a product of capitalism, not the opposite.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Blaming the victim eh? We are getting shafted by the rulling class and its our fucking fault if they decide to go on a murderous rampage for ressources? give me a break.


Victims that do not rebel or fight back. We've become domesticated slaves in our contries where our lack of rebellion allows the ruling class to fight wars abroad causing untold misery for others.

Without fighting or rebellion on our part we are all equal participants in the ruling class's atrocities.

I stand firm by my statement.

[danyboy27]

Victims that do not rebel or fight back. We've become domesticated slaves in our contries where our lack of rebellion allows the ruling class to fight wars abroad causing untold misery for others.

I stand firm by my statement.

Look at greece for fuck sake, see how well it goes for worker when they fight back.

do you really think the avearge joe who have the responsability of feeding its family really have time or money to do fight back?

fighting back would mean starvation and loosing his job, and perhaps his family.

the working class have to fight back, but in the current condition, please have some fucking understanding that it dosnt magically happen.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Look at greece for fuck sake, see how well it goes for worker when they fight back.

do you really think the avearge joe who have the responsability of feeding its family really have time or money to do fight back?

fighting back would mean starvation and loosing his job, and perhaps his family.

the working class have to fight back, but in the current condition, please have some fucking understanding that it dosnt magically happen.

The problem of this era is that a great deal of people are starting to lose their will to fight. There is also a lack of collective or self sacrifice too.

If you don't fight in a active engaged rebellion you lose the battle.

It's really that simple. Part of the word struggle means overcoming your oppressor and this cannot always be done politically or at a balot box to which violent confrontation is the final means necessary of achieving any success.

More and more the working class in our countries are losing the ability or will to fight which only allows the ruling class to intervene in controlling key positions of government.

[bcbm]

The problem of this era is that a great deal of people are starting to lose their will to fight

are you kidding me? greece, spain, uk, fucking wisconsin, egypt, etc etc etc etc we are not losing our will we are finding it again

[danyboy27]

The problem of this era is that a great deal of people are starting to lose their will to fight. There is also a lack of collective or self sacrifice too.

If you don't fight in a active engaged rebellion you lose the battle.

It's really that simple. Part of the word struggle means overcoming your oppressor and this cannot not always be done politically or at a balot box to which violent confrontation is the final means necessary of achieving any success.

More and more the working class in our countries are losing the ability or will to fight which only allows the ruling class to intervene in controlling key positions of government.

and on what do you build this bold statement? hot air?

and btw the rulling class IS the fucking governement and its official, elected representatives, nothing new here, been like that for thousand of years.

[Mr. Cervantes]

are you kidding me? greece, spain, uk, fucking wisconsin, egypt, etc etc etc etc we are not losing our will we are finding it again

By which means? Political governmental apparatuses are rigged by the ruling class.

Peaceful demonstrations accomplish nothing beyond a front paper headline if they don't outright ignore you.

For me there is only one alternative for the working class and that is a active physical confrontation or assault however you wish to define it.

[bcbm]

By which means? Political governmental apparatuses are rigged.

perhaps you have heard of tahrir square, the indignant movements, 48 hour general strike, massive popular action in the streets?


Peaceful demonstrations accomplish nothing beyond a front paper headline if they don't outright ignore you.

uh well most of the examples i listed haven't exactly been "peaceful," and it is of course asinine to expect people to magically spring forward ready to engage in gloriously violent revolution. class struggle is heating up though and people are beginning to fight again, it is really pretty impossible to miss.

[danyboy27]

By which means? Political governmental apparatuses are rigged.

Peaceful demonstrations accomplish nothing beyond a front paper headline if they don't outright ignore you.

For me there is only one alternative to the working class and that is a active physical confrontation or assault however you wish to define it.


i wouldnt call what happening in greece peaceful demonstrations.

[Mr. Cervantes]

perhaps you have heard of tahrir square, the indignant movements, 48 hour general strike, massive popular action in the streets?



uh well most of the examples i listed haven't exactly been "peaceful," and it is of course asinine to expect people to magically spring forward ready to engage in gloriously violent revolution. class struggle is heating up though and people are beginning to fight again, it is really pretty impossible to miss.



uh well most of the examples i listed haven't exactly been "peaceful," and it is of course asinine to expect people to magically spring forward ready to engage in gloriously violent revolution. class struggle is heating up though and people are beginning to fight again, it is really pretty impossible to miss.



Well until more of the working class actually takes the fight into the streets our passivity is part of the blame.

The ruling class thrives on our passivity.

[bcbm]

we're just beginning to break out of three decades of reaction that successfully destroyed the workers movement across most of the us and europe, it isn't as simple as you make it out

[danyboy27]

Well until more of the working class actually takes the fight into the streets our passivity is part of the blame.

but passivity isnt really something all worker inherently control.

therefore you cant blame the worker.

[Per Levy]

For me there is only one alternative to the working class and that is a active physical confrontation or assault however you wish to define it.

yeah, and will you stand in the frontliine and get beaten by batons or even shot by the states repressive forces? or is that only the job of us the "lazy" workers.

[bcbm]

oops missed that, yeah if that is talking about some urban guerrilla nonsense, get real the 70s show how that goes down

[Mr. Cervantes]

we're just beginning to break out of three decades of reaction that successfully destroyed the workers movement across most of the us and europe, it isn't as simple as you make it out

Excuses....



yeah, and will you stand in the frontliine and get beaten by batons or even shot by the states repressive forces? or is that only the job of us the "lazy" workers.


Not with unconventional retaliations.

[bcbm]

Excuses....

i think it would be better to describe it as "understanding reality," there are a balance of forces in class society. for thirty years the economic and sometimes physical force of the ruling class was used to crush the workers movements of the 70's as they became increasingly rebellious. they were very effective in this and now we see them beginning to finish the job in response to the crisis, but we also see people beginning to come together again and fight back.



Not with unconventional retaliations.

see: weather underground, rote armee fraktion, brigatte rosse, action direct, cellules communistes combattantes, japanese red army, etc... in short a rather lengthy record of failure. capitalism will be brought down by the only people who have the power to fully stop it- workers- not by armed combatants running around playing with guns

[brigadista]

anyone get a translation?

[Crux]

Victims that do not rebel or fight back. We've become domesticated slaves in our contries where our lack of rebellion allows the ruling class to fight wars abroad causing untold misery for others.

Without fighting or rebellion on our part we are all equal participants in the ruling class's atrocities.

I stand firm by my statement.
The working class is better and fights better than any of us. When we move into action, as a class, those of you driven only by resentment will be nowehere to be seen. And no we are not equal participants, that's moralism and ignoring the opression that persist in all class societes.

[Mr. Cervantes]

The working class is better and fights better than any of us. When we move into action, as a class, those of you driven only by resentment will be nowehere to be seen. And no we are not equal participants, that's moralism and ignoring the opression that persist in all class societes.


those of you driven only by resentment will be nowehere to be seen.

What is that suppose to mean?


The working class is better and fights better than any of us.

Not for some time.


And no we are not equal participants, that's moralism and ignoring the opression that persist in all class societes.

Were equal participants on the grounds that the ruling class couldn't war across seas without a obedient complacency or passivity to them.

Since they have our obedient passivity as the working class they are allowed to fight wars overseas and cause untold misery upon others.

We are much to blame. We may be unintentional or non willful participants but we are participants nonetheless.




bcbm: I think it would be better to describe it as "understanding reality," there are a balance of forces in class society. for thirty years the economic and sometimes physical force of the ruling class was used to crush the workers movements of the 70's as they became increasingly rebellious. they were very effective in this and now we see them beginning to finish the job in response to the crisis, but we also see people beginning to come together again and fight back.




see: weather underground, rote armee fraktion, brigatte rosse, action direct, cellules communistes combattantes, japanese red army, etc... in short a rather lengthy record of failure. capitalism will be brought down by the only people who have the power to fully stop it- workers- not by armed combatants running around playing with guns


The reason those groups failed is because they weren't able to muster enough support from the populance.

In the new fights ahead a much larger support foundation will have to be built. The struggle will not be won by peaceful diplomacy or negotiations but instead by war and insurrection.

[agnixie]

we're just beginning to break out of three decades of reaction that successfully destroyed the workers movement across most of the us and europe, it isn't as simple as you make it out


Excuses....



Not with unconventional retaliations.

lol, read Guevara, read up on the polish confederation war, on Corsica, on Spain, on Vietnam. Guerilla warfare against a regular enemy requires the people to be behind it, and willingness and ability to soak horrific losses, otherwise it's just a few wasps.


In the new fights ahead a much larger support foundation will have to be built. The struggle will not be won by peaceful diplomacy or negotiations but instead by war and insurrection.

The point, you blithering tool, is that you don't start the insurrection when you have absolutely no popular support, you educate, first.

[bcbm]

The reason those groups failed is because they weren't able to muster enough support from the populance.

actually brigatte rosse had a lot of popular support but lost it precisely because they turned a mass struggle into an armed campaign by isolated specialists. and anyway, what you think magically this time the population will fall in behind such tactics?


In the new fights ahead a much larger support foundation will have to be built. The struggle will not be won by peaceful diplomacy or negotiations but instead by war and insurrection.

where are you getting "peaceful diplomacy or negotiations?" i am talking about the class struggling for itself to overcome capitalism. that will take many forms, but it will be a mass action not isolated armed groups.

[bailey_187]

Gaddafi has already has made an assassination attempt on Doc Brown.

hold the fuck up

doc brown from North west london and the group poisnos poets


WTF

man will bus muammer wit my own strap

[bailey_187]

aint a ting man will holla at the dargs, muammar will get bodied

NO ONE FUCKS WITH DOC

[bailey_187]

yo man like margs, bring tru the pump u dont even use cah u will now

[Sasha]

bailey, dont spam, verbal warning

[Octavian]

He's begging to be assassinated.

[punisa]

Translation of Gaddafi speech today (1. July 2011), translation by Karim Budabuss
source: http://pastebin.com/erjZPSwL
(bold text by me)

The leader is talking now. He is saying that this is a historical day, and he is challenging Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama to switch on their TVs and watch the crowds and he is saying that they will find out that they are delusional because they entered a war which they never win, he also says if you continue targeting our houses we can do the same coz Europe is not far away but he said lets not do this and watch the crowds , kids and women. They are not here because i ordered them to, it is they are free will. in this war you are not facing me you are facing these crowds. I am nothing, if you want peace with Libyans, it is up to the crowds. If you want any thing , negotiate with the crowds. The regime is not Gaddafi regime, it is a Libyan regime . Even if many got scared, defected and escaped, the Libyans will remain, and each coward will be replaced with a hero. Is it a democracy to bomb the civilans, we don't want a democracy which comes with bombs. The socialist Jamahyria will win, the real democracy which serves the people. I advice you to stop bombing, and stop becoming merecenaries for some rebels. The Libyans said their words, they marched, their tribes made it clear that the future is for Libyans, the oil is for Libya, Libya is ours. You are delusional, a group of traitors convinced you that Libya is easy to get, you hired mercenaries , propaganda, sychological war all that didn't allow you to make any progress on the ground. Turn on ur TVs and watch the longest Libyan flag 4.5 km, I didn't make this flag, people donated to make this flag. Those rebels are no different from who betrayed Libyan during the Italian invasion. Libyan people go in millions without weapons to liberate the regions under rebel control. You Libyan people are the only one who can finish this war with a victory. If they want to negotiate we welcome that, otherwise we are continuing and they are definitely losing no matter how many weapons they drop with parachute to the rebels. We will not betrayed our history nor our children and their future. The glory is for you brave Libyans, the struggle will continue. (end of speech)

[brigadista]

thanks - well that is different to reported - I don't trust the press on anything coming out of Libya.....

[Zealot]

"We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans.

It looks like he just wants people to think about the way this war is actually heading. Civilians are being killed in Libya. I remember when this war first started, civilian death reports were deemed as fake propaganda to get people to support Gaddafi, now it's common knowledge that civilians are in fact being bombed.

[Threetune]

Diplomatic and tactical considerations aside, if this story is true, faith in “guarantees” from the imperialist marauders is the wrong message. Only Leninist revolutionary internationalism for the DEFEAT if imperialism is now of any value.


http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE76404420110705

[CynicalIdealist]

Personally, I think anyone who openly advocates for attacks on European civilians--most of whom are of the working class--should be restricted.

[agnixie]

Diplomatic and tactical considerations aside, if this story is true, faith in “guarantees” from the imperialist marauders is the wrong message. Only Leninist revolutionary internationalism for the DEFEAT if imperialism is now of any value.


http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE76404420110705


I don't think a fascist is going to go for Leninist revolutionary internationalism. Just a gut feeling.

[Threetune]

I don't think a fascist is going to go for Leninist revolutionary internationalism. Just a gut feeling.

A bit like you then. Or have you made a miraculous conversion to Leninist proletarian dictatorship for the defeat of imperialism? Great if you have welcome, to the revolutionary side.

[jake williams]

Intentional attacks by Libya, or anyone else, against civilians; European, or anywhere else; which mean, effectively, organized violence against the working class, are obviously unacceptable. This is in some sense true of violence against civilians on the part of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, violence against civilians by Irish Republicans, and so on. Terrorism is a tactic which, while in many cases resorted to as a last resort lacking other options - can the Libyan army credibly threaten NATO military targets? are they going to take out a US military base in Germany? - ought still be avoided by any movement which claims any progressive credentials at all, not necessarily to grant those to Qadhafi.

What I find very striking is the contrast, and words fail here, between the utter revulsion with which many on this board regard Qadhafi's probably empty threats to attack European civilians, and the utter nonchalance regarding NATO's real-life war against Libya. NATO will probably end up massacring far more Libyan civilians than Qadhafi would have or could have, and we don't even have to discuss whether or not the toll of suffering will be greater on the Libyan people, due to NATO's intervention, than will that brought upon Europe by Qadhafi.

I was tempted to post a very sarcastic response, pointing out that neither side is perfect, that sufficiently pure revolutionaries ought not support either side, and that it's not our place to take sides in a conflict between two bourgeois or even two imperialist parties in a military conflict. That I would be insulted if anyone suggested I actually supported murdering European civilians, and how dare they, but that actually bringing myself to oppose Qadhafi's doing so would simply be delusional allegiance to a bourgeois state, evidence of some clear defect in my politics. I was honestly tempted to argue that if Qadhafi were to attack Europe, our hearts should not be with those resisting violent terrorism, because whatever we might think of said terrorism, their actions in defence of their imperialist homeland was born of a reactionary false consciousness we would be helpless but to view with contempt.

I couldn't bring myself to do it even with a feigned sincerity.

[Dr Mindbender]

Even if Gaddafi is serious about attacking Europe, theres no way he would practically be able to acheive it. I think his airforce is pretty much destroyed.

[Obs]

Bourgeois leaders are dickheads

news at 11

[agnixie]

A bit like you then. Or have you made a miraculous conversion to Leninist proletarian dictatorship for the defeat of imperialism? Great if you have welcome, to the revolutionary side.


Show me a single leninist workers' state and I'll oblige. I consider a workers' state a contradiction in terms.

[Threetune]

A setback for NATO forces by the Gadaffi government would help undermine further the already crisis ridden imperialist interventions in the region and give confidence to anti-imperialists everywhere.
Libyans down NATO helicopter and no European civilians are killed in the action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8589793/Nato-denies-Apache-helicopter-downed-in-Libya.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8589793/Nato-denies-Apache-helicopter-downed-in-Libya.html)
Rebels launch attack 30 miles from Tripoli but take heavy casualties in Misrata.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651017/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/ (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651017/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/)

[Threetune]

Show me a single leninist workers' state and I'll oblige. I consider a workers' state a contradiction in terms.


The first two pictures on here is the workers state in formation.

http://www.nevsky88.com/SaintPetersburg/Revolution/ (http://www.nevsky88.com/SaintPetersburg/Revolution/)

"It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's teachings is the class struggle; but this is not true. And from this untruth very often springs the opportunist distortion of Marxism, its falsification in such a way as to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the doctrine of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie.


Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the boundaries of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie.


Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested. And it is not surprising that when the history of Europe brought the working class face to face with this question as a practical issue, not only all the opportunists and reformists, but all the "Kautskyites" (people who vacillate between reformism and Marxism) proved to be miserable philistines and petty-bourgeois democrats who repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat. " Lenin.

[Forward Union]

"We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster."

It reminds me of Downfall, Hitlers last few days in the bunker. Completely surrounded by the Red Army but still discussing how to take back the oil fields in the Caucuses to fuel the final attack on Moscow.

[danyboy27]

A setback for NATO forces by the Gadaffi government would help undermine further the already crisis ridden imperialist interventions in the region and give confidence to anti-imperialists everywhere.
Libyans down NATO helicopter and no European civilians are killed in the action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8589793/Nato-denies-Apache-helicopter-downed-in-Libya.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8589793/Nato-denies-Apache-helicopter-downed-in-Libya.html)
Rebels launch attack 30 miles from Tripoli but take heavy casualties in Misrata.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651017/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/ (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651017/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/)
And saddam troops succesfully shot down an apache helicopter during the second gulf war.
didnt gave much confidence to anti-imperialist tho.