400,000 Libyans demonstrating their support for Gaddafi

[Marxach-Léinínach]

jWzNhk3zv4U
That is quite a crowd

[scarletghoul]

Wow.

Just to put it in perspective, the population of Tripoli is about 1 million. The population of the whole of Libya is about 6 million. In other words this crowd is not just representative of a huge portion of the Libyan people; they are a huge portion of the libyan people.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Perhaps, the United States and NATO's blatant Imperialism and Russia and China's unwillingness to act in the interest of Libya when intervention had came about-- Will steer Libya further from Neo-Liberalism.

[scarletghoul]

Perhaps, the United States and NATO's blatant Imperialism and Russia and China's unwillingness to act in the interest of Libya when intervention had came about-- Will steer Libya further from Neo-Liberalism.
Undoubtedly. We can be sure of a return to "pariah state" of the 80s if Gaddafi makes it through this

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

It appears the numbers that Marxach-Léinínach had provided were significantly lower than the actual numbers of those that had been demonstrating against NATO Imperialism on July First; It had been 1,000,000 + as opposed to simply 400,000.

[Sir Comradical]

I'm going to cop a lot of shit for what I'm about to say but I'll say it anyway. Libyans have genuine material reasons for supporting the Gaddafi regime in this conflict.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm going to cop a lot of shit for what I'm about to say but I'll say it anyway. Libyans have genuine material reasons for supporting the Gaddafi regime in this conflict.
Of course they do.
National capitalism is better than comprador capitalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why are Stalinists always so eager to point to fascistoid spectacles as proof of a regime's popular support, rather than to any sort of actual democratic content in the governmental model that would allow it to be expressed organically? Is it because- and stop me if I'm being crazy here- because there isn't any, so these Hiterlite mass-wankathons are all they have? :rolleyes:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The Libyan people under Gaddafi are armed. Every household has a gun. If they didn't like Gaddafi they would turn their guns on him, but they don't, instead they turn their guns on the rebel scumbags and demonstrate in support of Gaddafi in the hundreds of thousands at a time. The way you rebelites deny reality is just ridiculous

[Apoi_Viitor]

Why are Stalinists always so eager to point to fascistoid spectacles as proof of a regime's popular support, rather than to any sort of actual democratic content in the governmental model that would allow it to be expressed organically? Is it because- and stop me if I'm being crazy here- because there isn't any, so these Hiterlite mass-wankathons are all they have? :rolleyes:

It depends, if this was a state organized event then I'd agree with you, however if this was a spontaneous gathering then it should stand as proof of the regimes popular support. Because its absurd to set the criterion that only functioning democratic regimes can have popular support. "Fascistoid spectacles" are perfect examples of non-democratic states that have mass support from the populace. But going back to Libya, I don't know anything about the context or the background of these events, so I can't state whether or not this proves Gaddafi has the support of the masses...

[Tim Finnegan]

The Libyan people under Gaddafi are armed. Every household has a gun. If they didn't like Gaddafi they would turn their guns on him, but they don't, instead they turn their guns on the rebel scumbags and demonstrate in support of Gaddafi in the hundreds of thousands at a time. The way you rebelites deny reality is just ridiculous
Seeing as you're of the opinion that anyone who actually does choose to turn their guns on Gaddafi is a "rebel scumbag", I'm honestly not sure what point you think that you're making, here. :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

Ok so half the population of Tripoli are there waving green flags etc, but some people on this forum still believe that Gaddafi is pure evil and only holding onto power by terrorising the people or whatever (despite them being armed) ; whereas the mix of al qaeda fighters, monarchists, arab supremecists, etc who are constantly praising the NATO bombing of civilians in Tripoli are apparently the forces of progress and are representative of the people of Libya.

seriously what the fuck

[AnonymousOne]

Oh good. We can trust the people at "whatreallyhappened.com". Sure they quote Ayn Rand and belive in the 9/11 conspiracy, are "birthers" but this has to be legit.


I'd like to see some more evidence supporting the authenticity of this video. Perhaps we should also look at critically examining evidence before we begin throwing out that it's real or legitimate or proof of what actually is happening.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why are Stalinists always so eager to point to fascistoid spectacles as proof of a regime's popular support, rather than to any sort of actual democratic content in the governmental model that would allow it to be expressed organically? Is it because- and stop me if I'm being crazy here- because there isn't any, so these Hiterlite mass-wankathons are all they have? :rolleyes:

Thank you, Christ. If the people were the state, than they would just organize and 'do' whatever. They wouldn't need to be assembled en masse to prove something about their fealty toward Gaddhafi.

Everyone else: were Nazi rallies proof of the popular and democratic content of the Nazi state?

[Decolonize The Left]

Jesus fucking think about this.

Neither Gaddafi nor the NATO-backed-rebels are completely "correct" in this situation, and neither deserve our complete "support." It's quite clear that this situation is a terrible one and the working class (i.e. the people) is not being represented in either situation, nor are they being empowered in any real material sense.
So you don't have to pick a side and say it's right or better than the other. It's entirely acceptable to say that each side has extreme faults and in different relative situations brings different positive attributes to the table.

So let's stop this political posturing and chest thumping, it's childish and silly.

- August

[Jose Gracchus]

This isn't an issue of "who is right" or "who should we 'support'" (whatever the fuck "support" means in any meaningful practice; I guess activists in their ghettos trying to call out each others' street cred -- some real advancing of the workers' struggle there).

There's a real point of discussion of whether passive marches and displays mean something in terms of social content. I argue they do sometimes when organized here, or say Greece, but that is precisely in terms of mobilizing people to physically confront the state power and authorities. What meaning does it have when the people purportedly control the state? Where they are just supporting the state?

It becomes obvious that the only plausible explanation is the necessity of the regime to mobilize de facto obligatory shows of support and loyalty, and to provide it with propaganda reels for consumption abroad.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I'd like to see some more evidence supporting the authenticity of this video. Perhaps we should also look at critically examining evidence before we begin throwing out that it's real or legitimate or proof of what actually is happening.

Yeah, them people must all be CGI or something :rolleyes:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Everyone else: were Nazi rallies proof of the popular and democratic content of the Nazi state?

Most Germans did support the Nazis

[Jose Gracchus]

Does that mean Nazi rallies were "spontaneous" acts of popular support and confidence? That there was no opposition? That the Nazi state was, as quoted, "popular and democratic"?

[AnonymousOne]

Yeah, them people must all be CGI or something :rolleyes:

Or you know, old footage being reused. Or the number of people is overstated. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to believe that a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists are the best source for accurate and reliable information.

Seriously, go look at their website. That's the group that uploaded the video. Go see other videos on their youtube chanel.

http://www.whatsreallyhappening.com

[scarletghoul]

Jesus fucking think about this.

Neither Gaddafi nor the NATO-backed-rebels are completely "correct" in this situation, and neither deserve our complete "support." It's quite clear that this situation is a terrible one and the working class (i.e. the people) is not being represented in either situation, nor are they being empowered in any real material sense.
So you don't have to pick a side and say it's right or better than the other. It's entirely acceptable to say that each side has extreme faults and in different relative situations brings different positive attributes to the table.
Speak for yourself, Gaddafi is a legend and the rebels are wankahs

[Tim Finnegan]

Speak for yourself, Gaddafi is a legend and the rebels are wankahs
And the National Front agrees. :rolleyes:

[Sasha]

Speak for yourself, Gaddafi is a legend and the rebels are wankahs


brilliant materialist analysis
chapeau

[chegitz guevara]

The Libyan people under Gaddafi are armed. Every household has a gun. If they didn't like Gaddafi they would turn their guns on him, but they don't, instead they turn their guns on the rebel scumbags and demonstrate in support of Gaddafi in the hundreds of thousands at a time. The way you rebelites deny reality is just ridiculous

Clearly the masses of Iraqi people supported Saddam Hussein, then, as they were armed. It's an invalid argument.

[chegitz guevara]

Most Germans did support the Nazis

Do you have actual facts to support that assertion?

[Red Future]

Do you have actual facts to support that assertion?

Excluding the working class this is by and large true for Germany in the 1930s

[Apoi_Viitor]

That there was no opposition? That the Nazi state was, as quoted, "popular and democratic"?

Popular? Yes. Democratic? No.

As for your first point, a state can be popular and still have segments of the population which are opposed to it. Popular support does not mean every single individual supports the regime.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

And the National Front agrees. :rolleyes:

Rather silly that the National Front would agree in relation to this as Gadaffi has historically been in opposition to imperialism and the National Front's political views. Not to mention, historically Gadaffi has been a key ally for those struggling against imperialism within the African continent; IE: Gaddafi ensuring that Burkina Faso would receive massive amounts of foreign aid without being forced into debt slavery and Gadaffi's historical support of anti-colonial struggles throughout the African continent; As well-- Gadaffi's massive support of those resisting Zionism in Palestine. :rolleyes:



brilliant materialist analysis
chapeau

Certainly more materialist than liberal supporting of NATO backed imperialist rebels that are similar in nature to the Contras.

[bailey_187]

I read an article about how those originaly arrested in the February protests' families were told to come and their families members would be released. Maybe its lies, i dno.

But anyway, i dont think this somehows means we should now see Gaddafi as a hero of the people. Millions of Americans watched Obama be elected, millions more watched and celebrated from their homes - but i dont suppose any of us support Obama. Nor does the fact that the citizens of Tripoli have guns mean much. Guns per 100 people in Libya is 15, while there are 88 in America (according to www.gunpolicy.org). Yet im sure no one would argue that the fact that Americans arent all turning their guns on Obama, means he is in anyway progressive. And this claim that the Libyan govt is giving out arms to everyone in Tripoli seems abit dubious. I have seen no evidence beyond simple claims - this doesnt prove they havnt, but the Gaddafi fans seem to have quite a tuff criteria when it comes ot judging "Western" reports out of Libya, so it would be only fair to do the same, right? I mean, the Libyan govt does have a fair bit of motivation to produce such propaganda.

[bailey_187]

Rather silly that the National Front would agree in relation to this as Gadaffi has historically been in opposition to imperialism and the National Front's political views.

Yeah well he had a meeting with Nick Griffin. he liked gaddafi's rejection of Marxism and Capitalism - u know, the mythical "Third Position". Wooha wooha



Not to mention, historically Gadaffi has been a key ally for those struggling against imperialism within the African continent; IE: Gaddafi ensuring that Burkina Faso would receive massive amounts of foreign aid without being forced into debt slavery and Gadaffi's historical support of anti-colonial struggles throughout the African continent; As well-- Gadaffi's massive support of those resisting Zionism in Palestine. :rolleyes:



lalalalala like punishing palestinians in Libya for when the PLO entered talks with Israel. Not saying PLO right or wrong, just that i dont think some palestinians in exile in libya re to blame. Do you?

or support the war on terror?

or help prevent africans fleeing the horrors caused by colonialism from entering europe because, trying to keep it cracker only.

Gaddafi's "anti-imperialist" record is all over the place. some good stuff, some crazy stuff. like supporting a bunch of gangsters in chicago to try and blow up the sewers - wtf lol.




Certainly more materialist than liberal supporting of NATO backed imperialist rebels that are similar in nature to the Contras.

U SILLY DICKHEAD TELL WHO SINCE THE REACTIONARY NATURE OF THE REBELS SUPPORTS THEM?

[Tim Finnegan]

Rather silly that the National Front would agree in relation to this as Gadaffi has historically been in opposition to imperialism and the National Front's political views. Not to mention, historically Gadaffi has been a key ally for those struggling against imperialism within the African continent; IE: Gaddafi ensuring that Burkina Faso would receive massive amounts of foreign aid without being forced into debt slavery and Gadaffi's historical support of anti-colonial struggles throughout the African continent; As well-- Gadaffi's massive support of those resisting Zionism in Palestine. :rolleyes:
I'm expected to explain away the contradictions of fascist third-positionism now, am I? Why not one of its open sympathisers, of which this thread has plenty?

Y'know, I saw a documentary, the other night, about the Khmer Rouge, and a former Khmer Rouge leader was claiming that Saddam Hussein was a "patriot" who had been "betrayed", or something to that effect, and I couldn't help but recall our local Gaddafite crowd. Fascist sympathies are apparently a bred-in to some supposedly "Marxist" tendencies...

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Yeah well he had a meeting with Nick Griffin. he liked gaddafi's rejection of Marxism and Capitalism - u know, the mythical "Third Position". Wooha wooha




lalalalala like punishing palestinians in Libya for when the PLO entered talks with Israel. Not saying PLO right or wrong, just that i dont think some palestinians in exile in libya re to blame. Do you?

or support the war on terror?

or help prevent africans fleeing the horrors caused by colonialism from entering europe because, trying to keep it cracker only.

Gaddafi's "anti-imperialist" record is all over the place. some good stuff, some crazy stuff. like supporting a bunch of gangsters in chicago to try and blow up the sewers - wtf lol.



U SILLY DICKHEAD TELL WHO SINCE THE REACTIONARY NATURE OF THE REBELS SUPPORTS THEM?

'Yeah well he had a meeting with Nick Griffin. he liked gaddafi's rejection of Marxism and Capitalism - u know, the mythical "Third Position". Wooha wooh'
:lol: As said, Fascists of this nature are rather silly.

'just that i dont think some palestinians in exile in libya re to blame. Do you?'

Nor do I, I was referring to the material support that Gadaffi had previously provided to Palestinians that were struggling against Zionism as opposed to him having had deported Palestinian migrants. (Which is rather silly to begin with and should be opposed)

'or support the war on terror?'
Out of opportunism as Gadaffi's Libya has historically had issues with Islamic militants.

'or help prevent africans fleeing the horrors caused by colonialism from entering europe because, trying to keep it cracker only. '

:rolleyes:

'some good stuff'
Indeed.

'some crazy stuff. like supporting a bunch of gangsters in chicago to try and blow up the sewers '
:lol:

[CynicalIdealist]

At least now the pro-rebel dolts can stop saying that everyone is behind the rebels or that the "Libyan people" as a whole "asked us to help," whatever the flying fuck that racist shit means. It's not like the rebels=6 million people, or the Arab League and its dictatorial U.S.-supported governments.

But sorry, I'm not pro-Gaddafi. NATO, the rebels and Gaddafi can all suck it.

[Tim Finnegan]

pro-rebel dolts
I'm still puzzled as to who we're actually talking about when we say things like this.

[scarletghoul]

brilliant materialist analysis
chapeau
I make my points concisely, doesn't make them any less correct.
I don't see the point in explaining things again and again.

[Sir Comradical]

Why are Stalinists always so eager to point to fascistoid spectacles as proof of a regime's popular support, rather than to any sort of actual democratic content in the governmental model that would allow it to be expressed organically? Is it because- and stop me if I'm being crazy here- because there isn't any, so these Hiterlite mass-wankathons are all they have? :rolleyes:

Unless of course you have a more accurate barometer for determining the relative size of the support bases for each side of this conflict? Comparing Gaddafi to Hitler is ridiculous beyond belief. Hitler was the imperialist aggressor while Libya is the victim of imperialist aggression. So under these conditions people are forced to make a decision on which side they feel better serves their material interests - nationalist capitalism or client state capitalism? Sure we can talk about how they should be organising on class lines but that's a decision Libyans have to make.

[Tim Finnegan]

Unless of course you have a more accurate barometer for determining the relative size of the support bases for each side of this conflict? Comparing Gaddafi to Hitler is ridiculous beyond belief. Hitler was the imperialist aggressor while Libya is the victim of imperialist aggression. So under these conditions people are forced to make a decision on which side they feel better serves their material interests - nationalist capitalism or client state capitalism? Sure we can talk about how they should be organising on class lines but that's a decision Libyans have to make.
Charismatic dictator? Check. Racial supremacist? Check. Pseudo-"third position" economic policy? Check. Poorly written screed elevated to Biblical status for no good reason? Check. Terrible sense of dress? Check.

I don't know, it's measuring up pretty well so far. :laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Terrible sense of dress? Check.
whoa whoa WOAH hold it right there.
http://www.artsology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gaddafi-clothes.jpg
Are we talking about the same Muammer al-Gaddafi !?!?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Rather silly that the National Front would agree in relation to this as Gadaffi has historically been in opposition to imperialism and the National Front's political views. Not to mention, historically Gadaffi has been a key ally for those struggling against imperialism within the African continent; IE: Gaddafi ensuring that Burkina Faso would receive massive amounts of foreign aid without being forced into debt slavery and Gadaffi's historical support of anti-colonial struggles throughout the African continent; As well-- Gadaffi's massive support of those resisting Zionism in Palestine. :rolleyes:


Gaddafi has actually been quite arbitrary in the groups he has supported. He backed Leftists like the Sandanistas and the leader of Burkina Faso, but he has supported some very odious and brutal movements as well, including the forebearers of the Sudanese Janjaweed. Other movements he backed included ones like the Liberian movement that put Charles Taylor into power. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberia%29) So it shouldn't be surprising that he'd also back the National Front.

[Sir Comradical]

Charismatic dictator? Check. Racial supremacist? Check. Pseudo-"third position" economic policy? Check. Poorly written screed elevated to Biblical status for no good reason? Check. Terrible sense of dress? Check.

I don't know, it's measuring up pretty well so far. :laugh:

Check out this thing called "form and content" because this crap just exposes your political immaturity. How is Gaddafi a racial supremacist, let alone a racial supremacist on the same level as Hitler?

[Tim Finnegan]

Check out this thing called "form and content" because this crap just exposes your political immaturity.
And the fact that you took that seriously just exposes your lack of a sense of humour. :rolleyes:


How is Gaddafi a racial supremacist, let alone a racial supremacist on the same level as Hitler?His treatment of the Berber peoples and of black Africans has been rather less than stellar. Not on a Hitlerian level, granted, but, again: piss-take.


whoa whoa WOAH hold it right there.
http://www.artsology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gaddafi-clothes.jpg
Are we talking about the same Muammer al-Gaddafi !?!?
I'll be honest, he was not the one of the pair whose dress-sense I expected to see defended. :laugh:

[Sir Comradical]

And the fact that you took that seriously just exposes your lack of a sense of humour. :rolleyes:

His treatment of the Berber peoples and of black Africans has been rather less than stellar. Not on a Hitlerian level, granted, but, again: piss-take.


I'll be honest, he was not the one of the pair whose dress-sense I expected to see defended. :laugh:

Gaddafi is a Berber.

[Tim Finnegan]

Gaddafi is a Berber.
The Gaddafi tribe are Arabised Berbers, yes, but he not only explicitly rejects a Berber identity, but denies that the Berber ethnicity is in fact existent, holding it- contrary to all evidence- to be an invention of Western imperialists, intended to divide and rule the North African Arabs. As such, he has pursued a campaign of mass Arabisation amongst the Berbers, or, to put it more damning terms: cultural genocide.

So, granted, perhaps "ethnic supremacist" rather than "racial supremacists", but, yet again: piss-take. I wasn't exactly going for a scholarly critique.

[Sir Comradical]

The Gaddafi tribe are Arabised Berbers, yes, but he not only explicitly rejects a Berber identity, but denies that the Berber ethnicity is in fact existent, holding it- contrary to all evidence- to be an invention of Western imperialists, intended to divide and rule the North African Arabs. As such, he has pursued a campaign of mass Arabisation amongst the Berbers, or, to put it more damning terms: cultural genocide.

So, granted, perhaps "ethnic supremacist" rather than "racial supremacists", but, yet again: piss-take. I wasn't exactly going for a scholarly critique.

What does "arabisation" involve?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What does "arabisation" involve?

Banning the language, interfering in their cultural sovereignty, etc

More or less the same thing that the USA did to Native Americans (I dont know which was worse)

[Sir Comradical]

Banning the language, interfering in their cultural sovereignty, etc

More or less the same thing that the USA did to Native Americans (I dont know which was worse)

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

[scarletghoul]

he is also the only male world leader with long hair. just putting that out there

[Tim Finnegan]

he is also the only male world leader with long hair. just putting that out there
And he's not exactly a winning advertisement for the style. :thumbdown:

[Jose Gracchus]

Gaddafi is a Berber.

And Stalin was a Georgian, but that didn't prevent him from overseeing the curbstomping of Social Democratic Georgia, and subsequent Great Russian chauvinist policies.

[robbo203]

Speak for yourself, Gaddafi is a legend and the rebels are wankahs


Apart from being a "legend", he is (or certainly was) a multi-billionaire capitalist exploiter and a nasty peice of work to boot willing, it seems, to authorise the shooting of unarmed protestors amongst other things. It speaks volumes for the anti-socialist and anti-democratic credentials of those who think we should support this scumbag

And, no, you dont have to support the rebels or NATO interventionism in order to oppose the Gaddafi regime. Some people on this list still haven't got this through their thick skulls. In their armchair black or white perspective on life, you must chose to support one side or the other; you cannot chose not to. Sorry, but reality is a little more complicated than this simplistic analysis of the situation suggests and Im fucked if Im gonna be browbeaten by someone rabbiting on about the evils of imperialism into supporting a despicable regime and one which incidentally has itself been a minor imperialist power in its own right judging by the billions of dollars invested abroad out of its "sovereign wealth funds"

[robbo203]

Excluding the working class this is by and large true for Germany in the 1930s


Whether or not it is true, is it justified? Mrs Thatcher came to power in the UK - or at least with her second term of office - with a landslide and with the support of vast numbers of workers. Should we therefore have curtailed our citicism of her regime on that account?

[chegitz guevara]

Excluding the working class this is by and large true for Germany in the 1930s

So, excluding a majority of the population, a majority supported the Nazis. Isn't that another way of saying, 'no, a majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazis'?

Excluding white people, most Americans are people of color.

[brigadista]

to be "controversial" on a completely frivolous note lol - i quite like his style....(of dress) [stands back]

[Q]

This really only proves that the NATO attacks have had an impact on the consciousness of the masses, that is, part of them. It looks like Libya is breaking up along tribal lines, with one faction pro-NATO and another pro-Gadaffi. Consciousness can drop back in times of war and people (or in this case a tribal faction of the population) tend to stand behind their leaders against a greater evil, in this case NATO. This demo is an expression of how the revolutionary potential is destroyed by imperialism.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

So, excluding a majority of the population, a majority supported the Nazis. Isn't that another way of saying, 'no, a majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazis'?

Excluding white people, most Americans are people of color.

No, plenty of working class Germans supported the Nazis as well.

“Precisely because so many Germans did in fact benefit from Nazi Germany’s campaigns of plunder, only marginal resistance arose. Content as most Germans were, there was little chance for a domestic movement that would have halted Nazi crimes. This new perspective on the Nazi regime as a kind of racist-totalitarian welfare state allows us to understand the connection between the Nazi policies of racial genocide and the countless, seemingly benign family anecdotes about how a generation of German citizens ‘got through’ World War II.”

“The Third Reich was not a dictatorship maintained by force. Indeed, the Nazi leadership developed an almost fearful preoccupation with the mood of the populace, which they monitored carefully, devoting considerable energy and resources toward fulfilling consumer desires, even to the detriment of the country’s rearmament program.”

“For most young Germans, National Socialism did not mean dictatorship, censorship, and repression; it meant freedom and adventure.”

“Germans were kept passive and generally content by a lavish social welfare system that was paid for by these riches. The improvement in the public mood that came with increases in people’s material welfare…”

“Nothing less than massive popular greed made it possible for the regime to tame the majority of Germans with a combination of low taxes, ample supplies of consumer goods, and targeted acts of terror against social outsiders. The best strategy in the eyes of the public-opinion-conscious Nazi leadership was to keep all Germans happy.”

“Later, when the fighting was over, the fateful collaboration of millions of Germans vanished, as if by magic, to be replaced by a wildly exaggerated — and historically insignificant — record of resistance to Hitler.”

“[T]he Gestapo in 1937 had just over 7,000 employees, including bureaucrats and secretarial staff. Together with a far smaller force of police, they sufficed to keep tabs on more than 60 million people. Most Germans simply did not need to be subjected to surveillance or detention.”
(Gotz Aly, Hitler's Beneficiaries, Holt Paperbacks, USA: 2005)

[chegitz guevara]

The question was not about "plenty of working class Germans."

The point was about a poorly constructed sentence, that basically created an opposite "fact" something by defining out a large group of people.

In truth, the Nazis never had more than a plurality of support, 44%, and half of that was a protest vote.

Basing how people felt about the Nazis based on a few years of plunder, basically 1939-43, is like basing the support for George Bush only on the period after 9/11, instead of all eight years.

[Sir Comradical]

And Stalin was a Georgian, but that didn't prevent him from overseeing the curbstomping of Social Democratic Georgia, and subsequent Great Russian chauvinist policies.

Can I meh? Many Orthodox churches chose not to betray their country instead opting to back the Red Army against the most powerful army ever built by imperialism. Big deal. Many Imams in the USSR declared jihad on the Axis (got this from khad), are you going to accuse Stalin of Islamism too?

All this is irrelevant anyway and I stand by my original claim. People have legitimate reasons for supporting Gaddafi, none at all for supporting NATO.

[Rafiq]

Clearly the masses of Iraqi people supported Saddam Hussein, then, as they were armed. It's an invalid argument.

To be fair, most people in Iraq would rather live under Saddam than what they have right now.

[bcbm]

To be fair, most people in Iraq would rather live under Saddam than what they have right now.

is their data to support this?

[Rocky Rococo]

I don't see a class basis on either side of the conflict sufficient for working-class militants anywhere to feel any sense of allegiance or solidarity to either side. As far as I can tell the splits between the regime and the rebels are on two bases, regionalism and ethnicity. First there's the east-west historic regional distinction between eastern Cyrenaica and western Tripolitania, with the quite stagnant battle line along that front almost exactly at the historic border between the two. Then where you do have significant rebel activity in the west, in the mountains along the Tunisian border, seem to be not-so-coincidentally also the areas of heavy Berber ethnic population. (I don't know enough about the details of the social situation in Misurata to explain why it is the other base of rebel activity, but I'll bet it has sfa to do with class as well.)

[Rafiq]

is their data to support this?

Well what would you have:

1. A shit dictator, big asshole of a guy, sucks a lot, like really bad.

2. No shit dictator, but your house gets bombed every day and its harder to feed yourself and stuff. Plus there is a chance of Foreign soldiers killing you or raping somoene close to you

[Reznov]

The Libyan people under Gaddafi are armed. Every household has a gun. If they didn't like Gaddafi they would turn their guns on him, but they don't, instead they turn their guns on the rebel scumbags and demonstrate in support of Gaddafi in the hundreds of thousands at a time. The way you rebelites deny reality is just ridiculous

Have you even left the United States? More so, have you even left the state you live in?

[scarletghoul]

Have you even left the United States? More so, have you even left the state you live in?
uhm

[bcbm]

Well what would you have:

1. A shit dictator, big asshole of a guy, sucks a lot, like really bad.

2. No shit dictator, but your house gets bombed every day and its harder to feed yourself and stuff. Plus there is a chance of Foreign soldiers killing you or raping somoene close to you

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

[Revy]

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.


Gaddafi is partially responsible for the mass murder of 300,000 Sudanese in Darfur, due to the fact that he directly funded and helped create the groups in Darfur (Arab Gathering and the Islamic Legion) that would later become the racist janjaweed. Some of the janjaweed leaders were trained in Libya.

Evidence of Gaddafi's racism is undeniable. It is not a thing of the past.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration


“We don’t know what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans,” the Libyan leader told a Rome meeting attended by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. “We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

[t.shonku]

The NATO is preparing for a ground invasion on September at least that is what the rumours are , if they proceed they will meet stiff resistance it seems , welcome to the new Iraq !

[Rafiq]

Bcbm that's a load of horse shit

[black magick hustla]

scarletghoul is a worthless troll don't listen to him but i just wanna say that the whole dumb reasoning of which side holds quantitatively the largest amount of supporters as a ruler for which side is correct or not smacks of the most vulgar democratism. the stalinists always had the enlightment deadweight of liberal democracy and thus, to them the more people you see in the streets supporting a side, means that side is correct.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Gaddafi is partially responsible for the mass murder of 300,000 Sudanese in Darfur, due to the fact that he directly funded and helped create the groups in Darfur (Arab Gathering and the Islamic Legion) that would later become the racist janjaweed. Some of the janjaweed leaders were trained in Libya.
There was no genocide in Darfur. What there was was a pretty brutal civil war where both sides committed atrocities. The west promoted the whole "genocide" thing because Bashir sold all of Sudan's oil to China - http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0819/p09s02-coop.html/(page)/2

Evidence of Gaddafi's racism is undeniable. It is not a thing of the past.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration
Actions speak louder than words
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44970000/jpg/_44970009_libya466afp.jpg
http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/africa/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Presidents-mandela-and-gaddafi.jpg

[agnixie]

To be fair, most people in Iraq would rather live under Saddam than what they have right now.

You do realize that baath and green book gaddafism are fascist, right?

Baath is basically an arab rehash of Renan and Mussolini, while Gaddafi is "legendary" only insofar as he's a capitalist nationalist whose friends are often european fascist party leaders. It's nationalist third positionism, without even the slightest effort to conceal it.

But hey, at least Franco kept Spain out of the war.


Actions speak louder than words

That's not actions, that's political photoops with clients.

Neither side should be supported, even if in this case, support amounts to writing bullshit screeds, half of which are probably written by trolls because, damnit, it's so easy to troll when the positions are based on the completely ridiculous idea that Qaddafi, a billionaire comprador, is somehow a great revolutionary.

EDIT - BTW, it's nowhere near one million. It doesn't look much bigger than the crowd at Glenn Beck's rally in DC, and while they made a claim it was omg huge, crowd counters came to a number below 100,000 (official claims are half a million)

[Sasha]

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2167824#post2167824)

To be fair, most people in Iraq would rather live under Saddam than what they have right now.

to be fair, the polls done says not: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece (and yes i know history is written by the current rulers but i mention those polls only beacause you just dont have any independent basis to found your claims)



Actions speak louder than words
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44970000/jpg/_44970009_libya466afp.jpg
http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/africa/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Presidents-mandela-and-gaddafi.jpg

http://www.ziomania.com/imagez/libya/gaddafi171.jpg

http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Gaddafi-and-Berlusconi-handshake.jpg

http://slapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obama-gaddafi-.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-9/gaddafi-sarkozy.jpg

that was too easy...

[Dr Mindbender]

Apart from being a "legend", he is (or certainly was) a multi-billionaire capitalist exploiter and a nasty peice of work to boot willing, it seems, to authorise the shooting of unarmed protestors amongst other things. It speaks volumes for the anti-socialist and anti-democratic credentials of those who think we should support this scumbag

And, no, you dont have to support the rebels or NATO interventionism in order to oppose the Gaddafi regime. Some people on this list still haven't got this through their thick skulls. In their armchair black or white perspective on life, you must chose to support one side or the other; you cannot chose not to. Sorry, but reality is a little more complicated than this simplistic analysis of the situation suggests and Im fucked if Im gonna be browbeaten by someone rabbiting on about the evils of imperialism into supporting a despicable regime and one which incidentally has itself been a minor imperialist power in its own right judging by the billions of dollars invested abroad out of its "sovereign wealth funds"

The thing is, getting Gaddafi out of power should be second on the itinerary. He must be usurped by his people, not by the NATO gangsters. Any revolution cheer led by the US we should be immediately suspicious of. I am slightly worried by this passive attitude displayed by some people here at the encroachment of the west into Libya. You can use as much rhetoric about the 'evils of imperialism' as you like, this is precisely what it is no matter how you cut it, imperialism. I think this is the thing that the hardline-anti Gaddafi people are missing. If the NATO/rebel alliance takes control it is going to lead to the installation of a pro-west-pro-Israel puppet state that will take North Africa towards a westernised parallel version of itself where Libyas economy is sucked into western banks and its political infrastructure assimilated into the neo liberal agenda.Where i see it, getting the parts of control off the rebel vermin is the priority.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

that was too easy...

It was in response to the guy claiming Gaddafi hated black people

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That's not actions, that's political photoops with clients.

Those pictures rerpresent his work in unifying Africa, support of African national liberation movements etc.

[Dr Mindbender]

I know that Gaddafi's Libya wanted to create a pan-african union, a sort of african equivalent of the EU so the charge that he is a racist does seem sort of silly.

[Sasha]

not really since he already reserved the position of "king of africa" and similar stuff for himself, pretty sure king leopold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Private_colonialism) would have had similar ideas of an united africa, he was still as racist as they come though

[Sasha]

also:


"The black race is now in a very backward social situation. But such backwardness helps to bring about numerical superiority of the blacks because their low standard of living has protected them from getting to know the means and ways of birth control and family planning. Also their backward social traditions are a reason why there is no limit to marriage, leading to their unlimited growth, while the population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage and continuous occupation in work, unlike the blacks who are sluggish in a climate which is always hot."

and not to forget his funding of the blacks murdering and "ship them all home" planning exreme right in a.o. England, the netherlands, germany, austria, canada: :

http://www.stopracism.ca/content/gaddafi%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98libyan-friendship-society%E2%80%99-canada%E2%80%99s-racist-movement

albeit i'm sure some here would wholeheartedly approve of that out of anti-imperialist opportunism or something

[Rafiq]

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2167824#post2167824)


to be fair, the polls done says not: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece (and yes i know history is written by the current rulers but i mention those polls only beacause you just dont have any independent basis to found your claims)


I don't know... I know people who live in Iraq, and that's what they tell me.. They could be full of shit though.

[Rafiq]

also:



and not to forget his funding of the blacks murdering and "ship them all home" planning exreme right in a.o. England, the netherlands, germany, austria, canada: :

http://www.stopracism.ca/content/gaddafi%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98libyan-friendship-society%E2%80%99-canada%E2%80%99s-racist-movement

albeit i'm sure some here would wholeheartedly approve of that out of anti-imperialist opportunism or something


Plus not to mention Gadaffi's friendship with berlosconi, who is pretty much an extreme rightist.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think Gaddafi's personal friendships is a distraction from the bigger picture that the US/UK is trying to seize by proxy, yet another sphere of influence.

Get your priorities right for fuck sake.

[agnixie]

I think Gaddafi's personal friendships is a distraction from the bigger picture that the US/UK is trying to seize by proxy, yet another sphere of influence.

Get your priorities right for fuck sake.

Trying to seize another sphere of influence? Lybia is already firmly in the NATO sphere of influence. Considered a partner in the war on terror, a good friend of Berlusconi and essentially an italian proxy in Africa. It's just a hiccup in an already established imperialist situation.

[JoeySteel]

an italian proxy in Africa.

are you joking?

[agnixie]

are you joking?

No, I'm serious. Libya was one of the countries very eagerly carrying out europe's hardening immigration policies. Especially Italy's. Italy is the main importer of Libyan oil, etc.

[t.shonku]

Evidence of Gaddafi's racism is undeniable. It is not a thing of the past.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration


Really ! Really ! RRRRRRRRRReaaaaaaaaaaaallyyyyyyyyyyy !

But reports suggest it's the rebel who are racists , they are lynching dark people and they are the one who have hardcore Islamist point of veiw


Dr Mindbender

I know that Gaddafi's Libya wanted to create a pan-african union, a sort of african equivalent of the EU so the charge that he is a racist does seem sort of silly.


Very well said

[JoeySteel]

No, I'm serious. Libya was one of the countries very eagerly carrying out europe's hardening immigration policies. Especially Italy's. Italy is the main importer of Libyan oil, etc.

So Libya's interaction with the rest of Africa has been a conspiracy to further Italian capital? When Libya has funded clean water for villages in Mali was it to further Italian interests on the continent? Do you see how the idea that because Libya agreed to cooperate with Italy on immigration matters (not without a price) therefore Libya is an _Italian proxy_ is totally illogical?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Trying to seize another sphere of influence? Lybia is already firmly in the NATO sphere of influence. Considered a partner in the war on terror, a good friend of Berlusconi and essentially an italian proxy in Africa. It's just a hiccup in an already established imperialist situation.

Jesus christ, when are you bastards gonna get this through your fucking dumb, ugly heads:

THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T BOMB THEIR OWN COMPRADORS

[Tim Finnegan]

Jesus christ, when are you bastards gonna get this through your fucking dumb, ugly heads:

THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T BOMB THEIR OWN COMPRADORS
They do if there's an opportunity for a more pliant comprador, as they have done in the past. No honour among thieves.

[bailey_187]

Jesus christ, when are you bastards gonna get this through your fucking dumb, ugly heads:

THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T BOMB THEIR OWN COMPRADORS


oh hey, im Ngo Dinh Diem

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Ngo_Dinh_Diem_-_Thumbnail_-_ARC_542189.gif



Im surprised u would give the imperialists the value of loyalty

[Os Cangaceiros]

Jesus christ, when are you bastards gonna get this through your fucking dumb, ugly heads:

THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T BOMB THEIR OWN COMPRADORS

dude what are you talking about. The USA and others have turned against former allies in the blink of an eye once they realized that either 1) support or tolerance for these people was becoming untenable for some reason, or 2) a better alternative was available. It's happened with everyone from Noriega to Milosevic to Saddam Hussein.

[black magick hustla]

people who use the term "comprador" have cavities in their brain

[LevDavidovichBronstein]

Neither side has my full support, but I'm leaning towards Gaddafi.

I'm sure many communists will agree with me there.

[Rocky Rococo]

Jesus christ, when are you bastards gonna get this through your fucking dumb, ugly heads:

THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T BOMB THEIR OWN COMPRADORS

The recent history of US imperialism would suggest otherwise. Indeed, it almost seems that past service as a comprador is now a prerequisite to getting bombed by us. Saddam, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, all former US "assets".

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The recent history of US imperialism would suggest otherwise. Indeed, it almost seems that past service as a comprador is now a prerequisite to getting bombed by us. Saddam, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, all former US "assets".

Yeah key word - former. They all turned on their master first.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Assuming Gaddafi was a total pro-west comprador who the west coincidentally just got bored of a few months ago, that still means the rebels you all love so much are the more reliable replacements the imperialists have specifically chosen

[khad]

The rebels, AKA the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, have been agents of western imperialism since Afghanistan.

They were there first. Hence, I hate them more.

[agnixie]

The rebels, AKA the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, have been agents of western imperialism since Afghanistan.

They were there first. Hence, I hate them more.

Yes, obviously an Al-Qaeda branch is an agent of western imperialism today. Did you ever notice that the cold war was over?


Assuming Gaddafi was a total pro-west comprador who the west coincidentally just got bored of a few months ago, that still means the rebels you all love so much are the more reliable replacements the imperialists have specifically chosen

Who has said they loved the rebels so much?

Oh wait, this is a huge fucking strawman and you're still a fucking tankie.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, obviously an Al-Qaeda branch is an agent of western imperialism today. Did you ever notice that the cold war was over?


Who has said they loved the rebels so much?

Oh wait, this is a huge fucking strawman and you're still a fucking tankie.

Clearly there are cases where the interests of imperialism coincide with the interests of armed islamist groups with links to Al-Qaeda. Forget the Cold War, Al-Qaeda was fighting shoulder to shoulder with NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo.

[agnixie]

Clearly there are cases where the interests of imperialism coincide with the interests of armed islamist groups with links to Al-Qaeda. Forget the Cold War, Al-Qaeda was fighting shoulder to shoulder with NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Okay, why is the only sourceable material for Al-Qaeda in Kosovo from Milosevic (who would have justifications to lie) and a random assortment of fascists (LaRouchites, vanguard, the islamophobes at Emperor is naked or however it's called, Western World news)? Have we really gone that low in the nostalgia that those are the sources taken seriously?

[Sir Comradical]

Okay, why is the only sourceable material for Al-Qaeda in Kosovo from Milosevic (who would have justifications to lie) and a random assortment of fascists (LaRouchites, vanguard, the islamophobes at Emperor is naked or however it's called, Western World news)? Have we really gone that low in the nostalgia that those are the sources taken seriously?

Okay, just Bosnia then.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have a distinct feeling that this argument is going around in circles at this point. But anyways ... Gaddafi is a creepy third positionist who basically acted to stop immigrants from Africa, and all his "African Union" nonsense was creepy Imperialism disguised as "third world solidarity". When it came for actual opportunities for black Africans to really improve their living standards by migrating to Europe, Gaddafi made sure they never made it. I'm sure Berlusconi appreciated him stopping Black African migrants from sailing the Mediterranean. Gaddafi's coast guard acted as Europe's minutemen.

As for the charge that the rebels are all Islamists, this seems highly unlikely. Sure, some of them might be, but some of the Iraqi insurgents were too. If there's any direct evidence of a USA-al Qaeda conspiracy (that doesnt come from a creepy source that lacks credibility at face value) or that the majority of the rebels are backed by or led by al Qaeda, it would be great to see. If anything, this is a huge embarrassment for the Islamists, that they were unable to topple Gaddafi in 20 years but suddenly the people in half of Libya's cities rose up on their own.

Lastly, even if al Qaeda was fighting amongst the rebels, that doesn't justify the war crimes of Gaddafi's military. Perhaps there was al Qaeda in Bosnia, but that doesn't justify the horrendous war crimes of the Serbs (just like the war crimes of the Serbs didn't justify the war crimes of the Bosnians/Croats either)

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I have a distinct feeling that this argument is going around in circles at this point. But anyways ... Gaddafi is a creepy third positionist who basically acted to stop immigrants from Africa, and all his "African Union" nonsense was creepy Imperialism disguised as "third world solidarity". When it came for actual opportunities for black Africans to really improve their living standards by migrating to Europe, Gaddafi made sure they never made it. I'm sure Berlusconi appreciated him stopping Black African migrants from sailing the Mediterranean. Gaddafi's coast guard acted as Europe's minutemen.
Nah, I think Gaddafi's solution - getting Africa on its feet so Africans don't have to leave their homeland to get better living standards - is better

As for the charge that the rebels are all Islamists, this seems highly unlikely. Sure, some of them might be, but some of the Iraqi insurgents were too. If there's any direct evidence of a USA-al Qaeda conspiracy (that doesnt come from a creepy source that lacks credibility at face value) or that the majority of the rebels are backed by or led by al Qaeda, it would be great to see. If anything, this is a huge embarrassment for the Islamists, that they were unable to topple Gaddafi in 20 years but suddenly the people in half of Libya's cities rose up on their own.
Yeah they're not all islamists, they're a united front of Islamists, monarchists, Arab supremacists etc. And btw the rebel areas only make up 1/6 of Libya's population

[Teacher]

The bottom line is that Libya is going to be much worse off as a result of this rebellion and NATO invasion.

In a fantasy world, I would love for the Libyans to rise up in communist revolution. That is not going to happen in 2011. Given the options that were likely, Gaddafi staying in power and crushing the rebellion quickly was probably the best one.

[cheguvera]

Gadafi is not a leftist.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Gadafi is not a leftist.

Yes he is

[agnixie]

Yes he is

The green book could have been written by Mussolini had he been arabic. No, he's not. "Krushchev found him a useful pawn" is worthless to determine his politics, as the latter Bush thought the same.


Arab supremacists
Gaddafi is fighting with the rebels now?

[Sasha]

Yes he is


since we obviously could fight for ages over his politics (although his ban on tradeunions should be an obvious pointer) i'm going to keep it at just two things from the more absurd spectrum:
- someone paying millions of its country's oil dollars to US celebs to perform at his sons private party's is per definition not an leftist.
- someone who uses the military to level the stadium of an football club because they had the nerve to win the competition over the team of his son is not an leftist.

and about this:

And btw the rebel areas only make up 1/6 of Libya's population

i think you mean 5/6 (discussed ad nauseum here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/tvm-please-source-t152528/index.html) and in contrast to gaddaffi they control that huge area with gigantic population without an huge repression apparatus to keep dissent down, stop acting like gaddaffi has the majority support, he doesnt especially not among the working class.
your cheerleading an anti-leftist police-state capitalist dictator who only has support from the capitals petite-bourgeois that he bribed through favorism.
he is nothing better than an mubarak or ben ali

[bailey_187]

i wonder if Sadat had never moved away from the Soviets towards the US, if Mubarak would also be a great anti-imperialist?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes he is

What leftist uses state media to slander a woman accusing the military of rape?

More importantly, how would a tankie actually rationalize such a government being "Leftist" anyway?


Nah, I think Gaddafi's solution - getting Africa on its feet so Africans don't have to leave their homeland to get better living standards - is better
Any evidence that he's actually done this? Anyways, imprisoning African migrants to Europe because Berlusconi needs it for his political future is NOT the way to bring Africa forward or improve living standards. Clearly, the economic situation means that Libyan help alone cannot bring Africa ahead and that many need to seek labor abroad to help their families.


Yeah they're not all islamists, they're a united front of Islamists, monarchists, Arab supremacists etc. And btw the rebel areas only make up 1/6 of Libya's population Source for both of these statements? Is there a majority monarchist, Islamist and Arab supremacist following (btw Gaddafi supported his share of Arab supremacists too including the forefathers of the Janjaweed)? Or perhaps the picture is more complicated than you are presenting? We know some groups around Benghazi fit those descriptions, but FYI plenty of other groups also rebelled. There were rebellions in pretty much every city in Libya, including Tripoli. Libya's army forcefully put down many of those protests and rebellions but by now at least half of Libya is in "rebel" hands including land controlled by long-repressed berber minorities-a group you seem to be oblivious towards in your list of the "united front" (among others-the entire East-and much of the Arab West too such as Misratah, where people are largely against the regime).

[Teacher]

i think you mean 5/6 (discussed ad nauseum here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/tvm-please-source-t152528/index.html) and in contrast to gaddaffi they control that huge area with gigantic population without an huge repression apparatus to keep dissent down, stop acting like gaddaffi has the majority support, he doesnt especially not among the working class.

I guess NATO bombs don't count as "a huge repression apparatus to keep dissent down."

Even without the bombings and European military assistance, I don't know how you can seriously say this if you've been paying any attention to this forum's discussions about Libya. Even the New York Times talked about rebel abuses yesterday:


The looting included many businesses and at least two medical centers that, like the towns, are now deserted and bare.

Rebel fighters also beat people suspected of being loyalists and burned their homes, the organization said.

The towns that have suffered the abuses are Qawalish, which rebels seized last week, Awaniya, Rayaniyah and Zawiyat al-Bagul, which fell to the rebels last month. Some of the abuses, Human Rights Watch said, were directed against members of the Mashaashia tribe, which has long supported Colonel Qaddafi.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/africa/13libya.html


your cheerleading an anti-leftist police-state capitalist dictator who only has support from the capitals petite-bourgeois that he bribed through favorism.
he is nothing better than an mubarak or ben ali

He is more like a Nasser or Peron.

[bailey_187]

^^^and that absolves him how?

Nasser created the political system that the Egyptians rose up against in february, and pretty much destroyed the Egyptian Communist movement. If it were not for the fact that Sadat felt he could gain more from a US alliance than the current Soviet one, you would be supporting him probably.

And Peron? Whats at all good about him?:confused:

[Threetune]

I wonder how much truth there is in this?
http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/ (http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/)

[Sasha]

I wonder how much truth there is in this?
http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/ (http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/)

and the aluminum hatters have officially entered the party, hosanna!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Assuming Gaddafi was a total pro-west comprador who the west coincidentally just got bored of a few months ago, that still means the rebels you all love so much are the more reliable replacements the imperialists have specifically chosen

I actually don't think that the rebels are the "comprador's" first choice. I think they hope that someone in the regime's inner circle will get sick of Gaddafi and take over.


Gaddafi has been shelling the town of Nalut for weeks, and rebels on the mountain tops can see the launchers in plain view. They say they pass the co-ordinates to Nato, but these are rarely used.

According to them, on one occasion a Nato jet was actually overhead while a launcher fired, but did nothing. A rebel commander asked: "What is Nato doing about the shelling from Gaddafi? A girl was orphaned here because Nato isn't helping. It's all talk and no action, the revolutionaries have lost confidence in Nato, it's clear that they are serving their own interests."

On the eastern front (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13936171) there are similar sentiments. However, while confusion or outrage are common, there has been little acknowledgement that they are reactions to a definite Nato strategy. As the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18837167?story_id=18837167) puts it, the Nato powers hope that "the rebels will not capture Tripoli after a headlong advance from the east". Instead, they want to see the regime implode: and that hope corresponds to a strategy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/libya-gaddafi-movements-monitored-nato?intcmp=239) of pressure on Gaddafi's command apparatus, rather than the tanks that are preventing the rebel advance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/04/nato-real-plan-libya

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wonder how much truth there is in this?
http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/ (http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/)

lol russia today

[agnixie]

I wonder how much truth there is in this?
http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/ (http://rt.com/news/libia-syria-war-africa/)

It's true that Russia Today has a curious fascination for third world ultra-nationalists who recycle fascism locally.

[The Intransigent Faction]

lol russia today

Not exactly a communist source, true, but is it worse than citing Western media like the BBC or, say, CNN? I'm not sure I see how.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only thing that's really unique about RT is their penchant for giving the spotlight to eccentrics and wingnuts, like Gerald Celente or that "Bay Area National Anarchist" dude.

Outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera or the BBC are of course biased, but at least they try and keep the wingnuttery down to a dull roar, and we aren't burdened with dire predictions about the USA's imminent descent into civil war and Balkanization.

[agnixie]

Not exactly a communist source, true, but is it worse than citing Western media like the BBC or, say, CNN? I'm not sure I see how.

Russia Today is in a completely different world from the BBC and Al Jazeera, neither of which really compares to CNN. It's conspirational ultra-nationalist nonsense for the glory of the motherland and fuck all else. Even liberal sources are better than that.

[bailey_187]

Outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera or the BBC are of course biased, but at least they try and keep the wingnuttery down to a dull roar, and we aren't burdened with dire predictions about the USA's imminent descent into civil war and Balkanization.

was this the dude that said it was going ot be carved up by other powers e.g. China is going to take the upper west coast and hawaii or something lol? crazy

[The Intransigent Faction]

The only thing that's really unique about RT is their penchant for giving the spotlight to eccentrics and wingnuts, like Gerald Celente or that "Bay Area National Anarchist" dude.

Or Julian Assange?


Outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera or the BBC are of course biased, but at least they try and keep the wingnuttery down to a dull roar, and we aren't burdened with dire predictions about the USA's imminent descent into civil war and Balkanization.

I'll admit they have some crazy shit, and have had people like Ron Paul or Alex Jones as frequent guests. Still, while so much of the media reports constantly on things like Charlie Sheen or whatever the media circus of the week is, they were reporting on things like "tent cities" in America and mass protests that other bourgeois media would prefer to ignore or portray in the most negative light possible. I'm not saying RT is great, but they do have their moments.

[Threetune]

and the aluminum hatters have officially entered the party, hosanna!


No, but you could turn the pro-imperialist racket down a bit. You’re doing the News of the World crowd out of a job.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

RT blows every other news channel out of the water

[danyboy27]

Russia Today is in a completely different world from the BBC and Al Jazeera, neither of which really compares to CNN. It's conspirational ultra-nationalist nonsense for the glory of the motherland and fuck all else. Even liberal sources are better than that.

the tom hartmann program is relatively good tho.

[agnixie]

RT blows every other news channel out of the water

Yes but you're a tankie, so it's not that unexpected.

[bcbm]

Nah, I think Gaddafi's solution - getting Africa on its feet so Africans don't have to leave their homeland to get better living standards - is better

how does supporting corrupt despots, civil wars and resource conflicts get africans on their feet?

[danyboy27]

If my memory is correct he asked for the creation of the united state of africa and an end to all the democratic governement in africa in order to stop tribal conflicts. he also wanted to be the first ''president'' of this institution.

[bcbm]

meanwhile supporting charles taylor and a slew of corrupt politicians, the ruf in the civil war in sierra leone...

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Yes but you're a tankie, so it's not that unexpected.
and you're a scumbag liberal fuckhead who doesn't seem to see an ongoing western imperial campaign as that big of a deal

[agnixie]

and you're a scumbag liberal fuckhead who doesn't seem to see an ongoing western imperial campaign as that big of a deal

More strawmen and more crying.

Long live the national bourgeoisie!

[Marxach-Léinínach]

It's fucking true. Anyone who doesn't at least critically support Gaddafi against NATO and the rebels clearly thinks western imperialism isn't that big of a deal. And anyone of that opinion can go fuck themselves then die as far as I'm concerned

[Sasha]

i wouldnt use the words "not a big deal" at all but i do see not much difference whether its an native or an foreigner power exploiting and slaughtering the workers...

[RadioRaheem84]

The Hitler analogy fails; Gaddafi is not Hitler, his regime is not anywhere near the level of Hitler.

The Libyan people throw their support behind Gaddafi, they seem to be fighting a battle to preserve the status quo, no matter how awful it may be, in order to prevent total neo-liberal change at the hands of imperialists.

How simple is this to comprehend? Very. It's a tough situation but the only way the rebel supporters or anti-Gaddafites can support their ridiculous assertions is that Gaddafi = Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto and whatever other neo-liberal dictator once aided by the West.

Why is this rebel movement not strong enough to topple him without the need of the West? Because the rebel movement does not have the popular support here, Gaddafi does.

At least admit that Gaddafi has the popular support over the rebels, at least admit that much, for the love of god. No one is telling you to support the man, but we're just talking about the material reality on the ground. Reality shows that Gaddafi is still highly popular among the people and that the rebel movement is not as popular as the Western media would have a viewer believe.

[Sasha]

he does not, the burden of proof is on you... show me one thing that shows gaddaffi has majority support... we have been discussing this for months and not one time the pro-gaddaffi cheerleaders have given one sliver of anything that could even begin to imply that..
you cant because he is the head of an dictatorial police state and the only people that support him he either bribed or are under duress.

[bailey_187]

i dont know how popular he is, and neither do you.

[RadioRaheem84]

you cant because he is the head of an dictatorial police state and the only people that support him he either bribed or are under duress.


what? :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

i dont know how popular he is, and neither do you.

You really have no clue?

[agnixie]

You really have no clue?

We want proof. Russia Today is not proof.

[RadioRaheem84]

We want proof. Russia Today is not proof.

Why are you guys always ragging on RT? It's not that bad of a news source and offers a different perspective than the rest of the media. They even give air time to people the mainstream media would never consider like people on the left from Richard Wolff to Noam Chomsky.

They may have on the occasional NWO right wing guy on there but the anti-establishment right isn't all that off when it comes to the reality facing the West economically. They too can see and are honest about the attempts to get rid of social programs and keep corporate welfare.

[bailey_187]

RT is a tool of the Russian state, just as the BBC World Service is. It promotes Russian interests. I still watch it sometimes though.

[scarletghoul]

Ok this is a serious question to all the haters: If a video of 100000s of people holding pics of gaddaffi and green flags is not adequate, what would it take to prove to you that the jamahiriya has popular support ?

[Tim Finnegan]

Ok this is a serious question to all the haters: If a video of 100000s of people holding pics of gaddaffi and green flags is not adequate, what would it take to prove to you that the jamahiriya has popular support ?
An election would be nice. But Uncle Muammar wasn't really very fond of them, was he?

[scarletghoul]

An election would be nice. But Uncle Muammar wasn't really very fond of them, was he?
Funny you should say that; he offered the rebels internationally moniterd elections but they refused.

[Tim Finnegan]

Funny you should say that; he offered the rebels internationally moniterd elections but they refused.
So they're both sucky, yes, we've been saying that for some time.

[agnixie]

Ok this is a serious question to all the haters: If a video of 100000s of people holding pics of gaddaffi and green flags is not adequate, what would it take to prove to you that the jamahiriya has popular support ?

There was not hundreds of thousands on the video. I've seen crowds and I know how easy it is to overestimate their sizes by orders of magnitude.

Also seriously, Raheem - the "anti-establishment right" is a cute euphemism for fascists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also seriously, Raheem - the "anti-establishment right" is a cute euphemism for fascists.


The anti-establishment rightists like Paul Craig Roberts and Alex Jones, NWO types are libertarians that decry fascism. Of course their sense of history concerning the US is still grounded in exceptionalism but they are always staunch civil libertarians. They're not fascists.

Fascists, in any sense of the word, would be the establishment rightists like Glen Beck, right wing commerical radio, Sean Hannity, the religious right.

I mean how hard is this for you to understand? I thought it was pretty blatant since most of their shows revolve around neo-fascist takeover conspiracies by multi-national corporations and their puppets in Government.

How on Earth is that the same from establishment rightists that wish to curb civil liberties in the name of fighting terror and promote neo-liberalism at home and abroad?

I would soon find some sort of common ground about current events with an NWO Alex Jones guy before it devolved into Bilderberg conspiracy stuff. They know there is a ruling class, they know there is deep politics and it goes deeper than the propaganda on television, they know the CIA conducts democracy destablizing missions. They're just wrapped up in this idea about it all being fostered by seedy underground networks when in reality it's just the capitalist social order at work, nothing more.

How are you going to compare the anti-establishment right who admits that 9/11 was blowback vs. an establishment GOP kool aid drinking pundit who think terrorists hates us because of our freedom and that the wealth will all trickle down if we give out more corporate welfare?

RT News is a pro-Russian new organization that serves the Russian state, but in this emerging multi-polar world, the Russians have decided to combat the US media machine, and in this inter-capitalist fighting we get some good news about US imperial ambitions.

Seriously, with comments about Gaddafi being a fascist arab supremicist, how you can tell if a crowd is 100ks or not and that the anti-establisment right featured on RT New are "fascists", I find it hard to take you seriously.

[marxleninstalinmao]

I'm going to cop a lot of shit for what I'm about to say but I'll say it anyway. Libyans have genuine material reasons for supporting the Gaddafi regime in this conflict.
Why would you 'Cop shit' for it?
Gaddafi was progressive.

[marxleninstalinmao]

Seeing as you're of the opinion that anyone who actually does choose to turn their guns on Gaddafi is a "rebel scumbag", I'm honestly not sure what point you think that you're making, here. :rolleyes:
Everyone who turned their guns on Gadaffi WAS a rebel scumbag- Gadaffi was a progressive and an anti-imperialist hero

[Sir Comradical]

Why would you 'Cop shit' for it?
Gaddafi was progressive.

You haven't been here long enough. A lot of Libyan rebel supporters here.

[Crux]

Everyone who turned their guns on Gadaffi WAS a rebel scumbag- Gadaffi was a progressive and an anti-imperialist hero
A hero ally in the U.S War Against Terror more like. And hero ally of the EU in building fäustung europa and keeping immigrants out. These are facts. But if you consider that to be progressive...

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Gaddafi family stole billions from Libya via its petroleum revenues. In the end Gaddafi suffered a fate as ignominious as that suffered by Mussolini. Gaddafi was about as "progressive" as Mussolini.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Maybe it came up earlier in the thread, but I missed some pages in the middle, so . . . was the video of the rally at the start of this thread "pro-Gaddafi", "anti-NATO", or some ambiguous mix of both? I mean, a person can certainly be one without being the other, or, for example, conditionally "pro-Gaddafi" in the context of NATO aggression, or . . . well, I think there is a lot of room for nuance here that is being overlooked.
I also think it's really dangerous to homogenize resistance to the Gaddafi regime - certainly, there are neo-liberal douchebags involved, but, by the same token, it is by no means a project of exclusively neo-liberal douchebags, nor does the end of the Gaddafi regime necessarily mean the deepening integration of Libya into the world capitalist market.
Basically, this shit is hella complicated.

[Ostrinski]

Massive necro

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Considering the recent revolts and armed conflict between the tribes and the government I'd say that it's worthy of being bumped