Was Gaddafi captured than EXECUTED? Is this a violation of the Geneva Convention? [Archive]

View Full Version : Was Gaddafi captured than EXECUTED? Is this a violation of the Geneva Convention?

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 19:58

Did the Libyan rebels/the new government just committed a serious war crime? Are they in violation of the Geneva Convention?

I saw video of Gaddafi being captured and taken away in a truck. Then all of the sudden he's dead. My questions is: Was he murder while he was detained? Isn't this a clear violation?

what do you guys think?

Tim Cornelis

20th October 2011, 20:00

Possibly. But who cares?

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 20:04

Tablo

20th October 2011, 20:05

wknw5UwClFI

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 20:21

can anyone tell me what they are yelling?

RedAnarchist

20th October 2011, 20:24

can anyone tell me what they are yelling?

Sounds like "Allahu akbar" or "God is great".

Whilst they may well have murdered Gaddafi, remember that it's very easy for Westerners who have been watching this war unfold from the safety of their homes to comment, and therefore very easy for us to judge the actions of the Libyans. Then again, that video shows very brutal treatment of an elderly, injured person.

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 20:27

can anyone tell me what they are yelling?

It sounded like that one guy kept yelling "allah akbar" but I couldn't be sure.

khad

20th October 2011, 20:27

God is great. God is great, indeed.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th October 2011, 20:28

why should he be excluded from the protection of the international law? He's a capture prisoner and there are laws to abide by. The fact that NATO is supporting the rebels even legitimizes this argument more.

Many POWs were killed by both sides, one "POW" in particular shouldn't get special treatment just because he happened to be the leader. Anyways, he would hardly be the first modern national head of state executed under dubious circumstances by armed partisans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Death)

Maybe he was executed and it's quite unlikely that whoever did it, as is the case with most war criminals on both sides, will ever come to any sort of justice. And that goes for Gaddafi fighters, rebel fighters and NATO.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:30

wknw5UwClFI

Fucking animals. These are the future rulers of Libya.

The world is slowly degenerating into a massive hell hole.

LuÃs Henrique

20th October 2011, 20:30

Did the Libyan rebels/the new government just committed a serious war crime? Are they in violation of the Geneva Convention?

I would say it was just plain murder, and that it is a violation of Libya's Penal Code rather than of the Geneva Convention.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

20th October 2011, 20:32

Fucking animals. These are the future rulers of Libya.

The world is slowly degenerating into a massive hell hole.

The then future rulers of Italy did this:

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mussolini-corpse.jpg

... but Italy didn't sink into chaos or a savage fascist dictatorship because of that.

Luís Henrique

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 20:32

Many POWs were killed by both sides, one "POW" in particular shouldn't get special treatment just because he happened to be the leader.

That is a terrible argument. "Well we break the rules sometimes about people so why not break the rules now?"

Not excuting a POW is not 'special treatment'. It is following international law.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:33

Since when do we recognize the Geneva convention and criticize our enemies for violating it?

What kind of shit moral criticism is this? Do you expect these scum bags to be good people or something?

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:35

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mussolini-corpse.jpg

Luís Henrique

Do you know what they were shouting? They are Islamist filth.

Our comrades in Italy killed Mussolini on behalf of the proletariat.

These Islamist scum bags killed gadaffi on behalf of their Imperialist masters.

Had it been a worker's revolution and proletarians executing gadaffi, I'd have no problem.

These are fucking vicious animals, here. Thugs and mercenaries.

khad

20th October 2011, 20:36

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mussolini-corpse.jpg

Luís Henrique

I'll raise you one:

http://www.anusha.com/najibull.jpg

Smile for the camera, wahhabi scum.

bcbm

20th October 2011, 20:46

These are fucking vicious animals, here.

no this seems pretty common behavior for humans

Agnapostate

20th October 2011, 20:46

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:53

no this seems pretty common behavior for humans

May be true, however, the important thing to note is that Libya is fucked.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:54

Rooster

20th October 2011, 20:57

bcbm

20th October 2011, 20:58

its only the work of vicious animals when they do it!

:rolleyes:

Seth

20th October 2011, 21:00

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Russian_Royal_Family_1911_720px.jpg

Decolonize The Left

20th October 2011, 21:00

its only the work of vicious animals when they do it!

:rolleyes:

No, it's always the work of vicious animals. It's just that sometimes people become vicious animals for a certain reason which seems more justified than others, so they are still vicious animals, but vicious animals in the name of the revolution.

- August

bcbm

20th October 2011, 21:03

No, it's always the work of vicious animals. It's just that sometimes people become vicious animals for a certain reason which seems more justified than others, so they are still vicious animals, but vicious animals in the name of the revolution.

- August

the history of revolutionary terror being such a success

tir1944

20th October 2011, 21:06

That video is...i don't know what to say.
As Rafiq said:these "rebels" are animals.

Iron Felix

20th October 2011, 21:07

Agnapostate

20th October 2011, 21:07

Tablo

20th October 2011, 21:08

They should have been more humane and just shot him in the balls.

Decolonize The Left

20th October 2011, 21:08

the history of revolutionary terror being such a success

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that in times of immense emotional and political stress and violence, people will turn to any reason to back up what they want to do.

- August

Soviet Comrade

20th October 2011, 21:14

Gaddafi was practically the most popular and competent and least corrupt leader in the African or Arab world as far as the impression was in that part of the world. I spent the last several years working in the Middle East by the way, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. He just incidentally stopped being popular when these Islamists started receiving checks from the Americans and their thugs.

I can never understand it when I see Communists and Socialists sticking up for this guy and the way he ruled. He was a reactionary thug. Just because he was somewhat left-leaning and temporarily anti-imperialist doesn't change that. As for popularity, George Bush had over 90% approval rating in the U.S at one point, would we stick up for him too? Also the U.S is less corrupt than was Ghaddafi's Libya (let me know if you see Obama practicing the kind of nepotism Ghaddafi did), so should we support the U.S?

Not that i'm defending the way Ghaddafi was killed, of course; I think it's quite despicable.

OHumanista

20th October 2011, 21:14

Good grief,if the trend here (of some) keeps going one will start defending a "peaceful revolution" were the burgeois will kindly deliver all control to the people and accept their fate. :rolleyes:
Killing someone in a revolution because it was necessary is TOTALLY different from killing a dictator to replace him with another. The lybian rebels are scum of the worst kind, they don't give a damn about Genebra and this is definitely not a revolution.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:16

So a bloody revolution is fine but a bloody reactionary coup isn't fine? :confused:

Yes

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:16

its only the work of vicious animals when they do it!

:rolleyes:

That is true, though. These scum are leading Libya into a dark future, while Revolutionaries lead the masses into progression.

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 21:17

Yes

You make shit arguments based on nothing but your own personal feelings. It's bad because you think it's bad or it's good because you think it is good. You make the same arguments that tea-baggers do, only against different people.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:18

the history of revolutionary terror being such a success

Yes, it has.

Those revolutions only failed because they didn't spread. Not to mention the failure of the German revolution because they couldn't adopt the Bolshevik method.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:20

You make shit arguments based on nothing but your own personal feelings. It's bad because you think it's bad or it's good because you think it is good. You make the same arguments that tea-baggers do, only against different people.

Go fuck yourself.

A bloody revolution in the interest of the proletariat has a "moral(I don't like this word, but)" authority over a reactionary coup.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't share the interests of the international proletariat, instead you have some kind of affinity with universal morality (Not contradictory to my above statement, as in Moral I mean more progressive and better for the material conditions of society to advance) against all forms of Authoritarianism.

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 21:24

Go fuck yourself.

A bloody revolution in the interest of the proletariat has a "moral(I don't like this word, but)" authority over a reactionary coup.

I agree, but you still make terrible arguments in favor of it. You also seem to just have a fetish for violence.

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 21:26

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:27

I agree, but you still make terrible arguments in favor of it. You also seem to just have a fetish for violence.

I don't have a fetish for violence, I just recognize and accept that it will be one of the most vital tools for the proletariat to achieve class power. You're naive if you think otherwise.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 21:28

I thought the Rebels were not Islamist

They are. Our lovely Bourgeois-Liberalist media likes to potray them as "Pro Democracy" and "Pro Western and Progressive" freedom fighters (Just like they tried to potray the Islamist Muhajadeen of Afghanistan the same way) when in reality they are reactionary Islamist scum.

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 21:33

You're naive if you think otherwise.

Oh yes, enlighten me please kind sir :rolleyes:

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 21:42

ColonelCossack

20th October 2011, 21:51

Fucking animals. These are the future rulers of Libya.

The world is slowly degenerating into a massive hell hole.

I agree. I found that video sickening.

Then to go and execute him?

Le Socialiste

20th October 2011, 21:51

Who the fuck cares? Gaddafi was a brutal ruler and a member of the Libyan bourgeoisie while in power. His government was steeped in varying shades of authoritarian leadership and despotism, wherein the upper-classes grew fat off its exploitation of the people's labor and the latter were left with a deteriorating social structure. The people's reaction against what they deemed the source of their misery was a natural one, albeit one which was largely guided by forces just as reactionary (if not more so) than Gaddafi. So in the end, the people of Libya have witnessed not a truly popular uprising for the good and benefit of the working-class, but the inter-wrangling of two opportunistic camps for the favor and backing of the West. The Libyan working-class loses either way. Gaddafi was already out of the picture; his ability to resist the steady erosion of his grip on power had long passed. His death will serve as a rallying point for the people around the new government, as well as lending it much-needed legitimacy in the eyes of domestic (and international) observers. The Libyan working-class has merely witnessed a change in the face oppression wears. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the people of Libya. It is the new government, as well as various governments of the West (who have a vested interest in how the situation plays out) who stand to reap the benefits of Gaddafi's overthrow. And they will, unless the people renew their struggle. Whether or not they will, though, remains to be seen.

ColonelCossack

20th October 2011, 21:55

wknw5UwClFI

That made me feel physically sick. Really... now I feel ill.

Susurrus

20th October 2011, 21:58

Nox

20th October 2011, 21:58

To be honest, common sense, morality and human rights went out the window as soon as NATO invaded. Yes, I'm calling it an invasion.

Smyg

20th October 2011, 22:00

I originally didn't care much. Just another fallen dictator, just another notch on the sword so to speak. After watching that video... damn. That was fucked up.

Nox

20th October 2011, 22:02

Have you seen these fucking idiot 'rebels' constantly firing bullets in the air? What goes up must come down, people die from that every day, especially in Libya.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 22:03

Oh yes, enlighten me please kind sir :rolleyes:

I won't waste my time. It's called experience.

To be honest, you are about as relevant to a worker's revolution as I am, so I really don't care what your opinion is.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 22:05

I find it hilarious that it's the M-Ls getting the most worked up about this.

Also, @Rafiq's comment about the Russian revolution, do you mean the tactics of overthrowing the provisional government or the tactics of shutting down soviets and killing or imprisoning workers?

Of course the tactics of overthrowing the provisional government. What happened afterwords was a result of the revolution isolated.

Princess Luna

20th October 2011, 22:06

I kind of felt sorry for Gaddafi but then I thought, how many people met the same fate at the hands of his secret police?

Have you seen these fucking idiot 'rebels' constantly firing bullets in the air? What goes up must come down, people die from that every day, especially in Libya.

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.

someone who is better at physics correct me if i am wrong

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 22:10

I don't care if he raped or murder people.. No one should sink to his level and we should always show more respect for life than the brutal people we hunt down. We have to be better than that.

khad

20th October 2011, 22:14

I kind of felt sorry for Gaddafi but then I thought, how many people met the same fate at the hands of his secret police?
I'll say this once.

The mujahideen of the LIFG who returned to Libya having practiced their mutilations and butchering on leftists in Afghanistan deserved nothing less than the fate they got--which, btw, was death by shooting, not a circus act fit for the post-Reconstruction American South.

Have fun with your new wahhabi bedfellows, imperialists. That, you deserve.

Zealot

20th October 2011, 22:15

Fuck it's annoying every time I watch a video they're yelling "Allah Akbar!!!" and then when they execute Gaddafi the band of thugs and barbarians are still yelling the same shit, firing guns into the air. Scum.

Leftsolidarity

20th October 2011, 22:16

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.

someone who is better at physics correct me if i am wrong

People have died or at least been injured from falling bullets

Nox

20th October 2011, 22:19

I kind of felt sorry for Gaddafi but then I thought, how many people met the same fate at the hands of his secret police?

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.

someone who is better at physics correct me if i am wrong

Yes, but the speed it falls down at is more than enough to kill someone. If one hit you in the head you would die.

With tens if not hundreds of thousands of bullets fired into the air by the rebels on a weekly basis, lots of people must die.

tfb

20th October 2011, 22:20

I don't know about you guys, but this video really convinced me that "God is great". They said it so many times that it's hard to disagree.

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 22:21

Hey guys.. are there any links to reports that talk about the people who are dying from the rebels shooting their guns up in the air?

Comrade-Z

20th October 2011, 22:25

They are. Our lovely Bourgeois-Liberalist media likes to potray them as "Pro Democracy" and "Pro Western and Progressive" freedom fighters (Just like they tried to potray the Islamist Muhajadeen of Afghanistan the same way) when in reality they are reactionary Islamist scum.

Hmmm...is the U.S. once again setting itself up for some blowback down the road? Are these Islamists going to be docile to U.S. imperialism, or is there a chance that the U.S./NATO might have a difficult time getting them to behave as plianty as the U.S./NATO had hoped?

(Not that that would make the Islamists suddenly "glorious freedom-fighters," but just curious how tightly they are allied to NATO).

Zealot

20th October 2011, 22:39

They will have no other choice. Libya is now destroyed both physically and economically, so that good ole US and NATO can send in contractors working for western companies to "rebuild" the society they helped to destroy. In exchange they get to plunder Libya's resources. I'm hoping that the people will rise against this government for a "second revolution" like what is happening in Egypt because this Islamist scum is going to run the country into the ground.

Susurrus

20th October 2011, 22:42

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.

someone who is better at physics correct me if i am wrong

Well, that's only true if you fire it perfectly straight up(impossible by hand). However, if you fire it at an angle, the momentum is preserved and it is still lethal. Info from Mythbusters.

Zealot

20th October 2011, 22:49

I kind of felt sorry for Gaddafi but then I thought, how many people met the same fate at the hands of his secret police?

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.

someone who is better at physics correct me if i am wrong

Well there have been cases of people dieing from bullets that have come down after being shot into the air. What this basically means is that these thugs would have killed half of their unit without Gaddafi even resisting.

The CPSU Chairman

20th October 2011, 22:56

Just one ruling class thug replaced with new ruling class thugs. I won't miss him. But the way he got killed leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Reminds me of the Taliban lynching Najibullah in Afghanistan.

PC LOAD LETTER

20th October 2011, 23:02

There was a little kid here in Atlanta who was killed recently from a falling bullet like that

pastradamus

20th October 2011, 23:06

Fucking animals. These are the future rulers of Libya.

The world is slowly degenerating into a massive hell hole.

These people surely had commanders. Somebody must have been in charge here and ordered this. Dont get me wrong, Gadaffi was a scumbag but I wouldn't wish that treatment on anybody. Stabbing and beating an old man to death...really fucking heroic.

pastradamus

20th October 2011, 23:08

Hmmm...is the U.S. once again setting itself up for some blowback down the road? Are these Islamists going to be docile to U.S. imperialism, or is there a chance that the U.S./NATO might have a difficult time getting them to behave as plianty as the U.S./NATO had hoped?

(Not that that would make the Islamists suddenly "glorious freedom-fighters," but just curious how tightly they are allied to NATO).

Islamists, will play ball with the US when it suits them - and vice-versa (Taliban, Saudi arabia etc). Fusing young minds and coaxing them into their disgusting regiments simply for the benefit of corrupt old men.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th October 2011, 23:15

That is a terrible argument. "Well we break the rules sometimes about people so why not break the rules now?"

Not excuting a POW is not 'special treatment'. It is following international law.

That is not at all what I'm saying, I was just noting the oddity of starting a thread devoted to this one particular "POW" when so many others have been brutalized in this conflict. You are correct that Gaddafi deserved fair treatment as much as any other prisoner.

The mujahideen of the LIFG who returned to Libya having practiced their mutilations and butchering on leftists in Afghanistan deserved nothing less than the fate they got--which, btw, was death by shooting, not a circus act fit for the post-Reconstruction American South.

Seriously, so anyone who disliked Gaddafi, was brutalized by his thuggish state, or protested against his rule was a wahabi fundamentalist? :confused: I suppose this lady was Osama bin Laden's hidden agent in Libya? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2011/3/28/1301317721631/Iman-Al-Obeidi--007.jpg

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 23:20

Gadaffi is a scumbag no doubt, however, such claims as the one above were probably orchestrated.

I doubt that Gadaffis troops raped people, on the contrary, there is more evidence toward the rebels being the rapists.

aristos

20th October 2011, 23:29

Seriously, so anyone who disliked Gaddafi, was brutalized by his thuggish state, or protested against his rule was a wahabi fundamentalist? :confused: I suppose this lady was Osama bin Laden's hidden agent in Libya? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2011/3/28/1301317721631/Iman-Al-Obeidi--007.jpg

I so love it when rabid anti-Gaddafiists always resort to pointing to that one single case that may as well have been fabricated (simply because they have no other "evidence" of Gaddafi's alleged brutality ;) ), all the while conveniently ignoring the lynchings and mass rapes executed by the rebels. I guess the life of an anti-Gaddafiist is worth a thousand lives of Gadaffi supporters.

CommieTroll

20th October 2011, 23:31

wknw5UwClFI

It's fucking appalling for a human being to be treated like that, especially an old elderly human, fucking animals and unfortunately those Islamist reactionaries are going to be heading the new Libyan puppet state. It's sub human to treat someone like that. Che and Fidel carried out revolutionary trials and sent counter revolutionaries to the firing squads, not savagely beat a human being to death on the streets. Fuck!

R_P_A_S

20th October 2011, 23:40

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th October 2011, 23:50

I so love it when rabid anti-Gaddafiists always resort to pointing to that one single case that may as well have been fabricated (simply because they have no other "evidence" of Gaddafi's alleged brutality ;) ), all the while conveniently ignoring the lynchings and mass rapes executed by the rebels. I guess the life of an anti-Gaddafiist is worth a thousand lives of Gadaffi supporters.

Gadaffi is a scumbag no doubt, however, such claims as the one above were probably orchestrated.

I doubt that Gadaffis troops raped people, on the contrary, there is more evidence toward the rebels being the rapists.

Fucking amazing ... a woman accuses her government of rape and abuse and then is ARRESTED for it, slandered on TV and ultimately forced out of the country, and you accuse her of lying and fabricating her claim without any basis whatsoever. Women obviously still have a long way to go in some parts of the Left ...

Aristos-Did I ever deny that the war crimes committed by the rebels ever happened? No? Maybe you should stop denying the crimes of a narcissistic capitalist and monarchic dictatorship.

aristos

20th October 2011, 23:55

Fucking disgusting... a multitude of people across Lybia are being raped and lynched and you are engaged in hand-waving by trying to divert attention to a single unproven allegation.

aristos

21st October 2011, 00:03

Did I ever deny that the war crimes committed by the rebels ever happened? No? Maybe you should stop denying the crimes of a narcissistic capitalist and monarchic dictatorship.

You might have not denied it explicitly, but the fact that you think there is some equivalence between systematic brutality on the one hand, and this one case that you keep parading on and on (for absolute lack of any other damning material) on the other does show how caught up you are in your bias.

Wanted Man

21st October 2011, 00:06

CommieTroll

21st October 2011, 00:07

cysf9zT6Hso

Lets not forget of Gaddafi's wealth though. Despite his alleged brutality, what they did to him is still barbaric. Oh well, another feat for oil hungry Imperialists

robbo203

21st October 2011, 00:17

tir1944

21st October 2011, 00:36

He wasnt really being corrupt
Libya invested a lot of money in Italian and other EU companies.
I personally believe that Gadafi was indeed a bit corrupt,but way less corrupt than some other African leaders,or,for example,Italian Prime Minsiter.

tir1944

21st October 2011, 01:07

Bronco

21st October 2011, 01:56

Looks like the same was done to his son, this link (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9fc_1319140358) has 2 vids of Motasim, in the first he is wounded and being taken away and in the second he is dead

Susurrus

21st October 2011, 02:13

INB4:Al-queda (etc) feasting on tons of most modern weaponry just waiting to be "harvested" from abandoned warehouses...wait till first passanger jetplanes start falling from the sky thanks to Terrorist's newly aquired toys like Strela/Igla etc MANPADS...:rolleyes:

a. Most muslim terrorist orgs aren't that well organized.
b. Why would the libyan islamists give weapons to fight against their godfather?

tir1944

21st October 2011, 02:16

a. Most muslim terrorist orgs aren't that well organized.
O RLY?

Why would the libyan islamists give weapons to fight against their godfather?
Case in point:Taliban.

Susurrus

21st October 2011, 02:19

O RLY?

Case in point:Taliban.

Yeah. Lots of power struggles and logistics problems.

After they stopped backing them that happened. Case in point: Saudi Arabia.

Hiero

21st October 2011, 03:03

Whilst they may well have murdered Gaddafi, remember that it's very easy for Westerners who have been watching this war unfold from the safety of their homes to comment, and therefore very easy for us to judge the actions of the Libyans.

That is excactly what us Westerners do on this website, sit at our homes and make comments about the world.

Lynx

21st October 2011, 03:16

Glad to see him endure a fraction of the suffering he caused others during his rule.

A Revolutionary Tool

21st October 2011, 03:28

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 03:36

If I was a rebel I would have shot him in the fucking face. Or are we going to start crying when the heads of states are killed by rebels now? When Louis XIV was beheaded, when Mussolini was lynched, when the tsars were killed, etc, were we crying? You may disagree with the rebel's aims but this is nowhere near unusual, even for us. If there was a revolution tomorrow and Obama was captured and killed I wouldn't be too upset by it. Fuck Ghaddafi(or however you spell it) anyways.

lmao! I don't think any of us were alive when those people you mentioned were killed. It's 2011 and we aren't fucking savages. That's for sure. At least I'd hope that we aren't as bad as these assholes were to their people.

RadioRaheem84

21st October 2011, 03:39

Fuck these stupid comparisons of the Italian Partisans and the Libyan Rebels.

Islamist scum / = anti-Fascist fighters in WWII. No if ands or buts.

Os Cangaceiros

21st October 2011, 03:39

INB4:Al-queda (etc) feasting on tons of most modern weaponry just waiting to be "harvested" from abandoned warehouses...wait till first passanger jetplanes start falling from the sky thanks to Terrorist's newly aquired toys like Strela/Igla etc MANPADS...:rolleyes:

Supposedly some of those weapons have already reached the black market in Egypt, on their way to Gaza.

Let's hope those crazy Islamists in Palestine don't get ahold of 'em! :scared:

A Revolutionary Tool

21st October 2011, 03:47

Hiero

21st October 2011, 04:00

Seth

21st October 2011, 04:02

Why was killing the tsar wrong?

Hiero

21st October 2011, 04:53

Why was killing the tsar wrong?

Because maybe killing people in custody is wrong.

Princess Luna

21st October 2011, 05:32

It's fucking appalling for a human being to be treated like that, especially an old elderly human, fucking animals and unfortunately those Islamist reactionaries are going to be heading the new Libyan puppet state. It's sub human to treat someone like that. Che and Fidel carried out revolutionary trials and sent counter revolutionaries to the firing squads, not savagely beat a human being to death on the streets. Fuck!
Oh save the sob story, if this had been Mubarak (or any other old U.S. backed dictator) you would most likely be be cheering and justly so. It's funny how ML's love to use the Robespierre quote that says "Don't wave the kings bloody rags in my face" (I forget the exact quote) until someone they like gets killed, then it becomes "Think of the poor and feable old man, those monsters brutally murdered!"

Fuck these stupid comparisons of the Italian Partisans and the Libyan Rebels.

Islamist scum / = anti-Fascist fighters in WWII. No if ands or buts. While the motivations for killing Mussolini and Gaddafi were vastly different, the actual acts of killing were pretty much the same. And many people here are attacking the act of killing Gaddafi, saying it's wrong to execute someone on the spot, instead they should be taken captive and give a fair trial. However if you are going to attack the killing of Gaddafi on those grounds, you have to apply the same logic to the killing of Mussolini.

Hiero

21st October 2011, 05:54

However if you are going to attack the killing of Gaddafi on those grounds, you have to apply the same logic to the killing of Mussolini.

Well I did actually, I am influenced by the ideological thinkings of Mao Zedong.

black magick hustla

21st October 2011, 06:36

Le Socialiste

21st October 2011, 07:01

lmao! I don't think any of us were alive when those people you mentioned were killed. It's 2011 and we aren't fucking savages. That's for sure. At least I'd hope that we aren't as bad as these assholes were to their people.

This is more about the highlighted line than the actual post: using a particular date in time (or as an indicator of humanity's "modernity") doesn't mean squat. It reminds me of those people who gasp and look surprised when a hate crime against any one minority occurs, or when a riot erupts out of an impoverished neighborhood - as if to say "How could such things happen in the 21st century?"

The reality is, for all our advancements in medicine, technology, and our general understanding of the world and beyond, we have yet to emerge from the urge to off a corrupt and brutal dictator. Did Gaddafi deserve death? That is ultimately up to the person you ask. However, the issues and events of past centuries didn't just vanish upon entering the 21st. Violence should never be glorified, but it's not like it went away with the end of the 20th century.

Winkers Fons

21st October 2011, 09:54

It kind of makes me sad to see that the argument in favor of murdering Gaddafi coming from supposed leftists boils down to "if he did it then so can I". Isn't the whole point of a revolution to change the way things are done?

Yugo45

21st October 2011, 10:10

When he was captured, he was begging them not to shoot him.

So yeah, he was executed.

Typical war crime.

Nox

21st October 2011, 11:47

It's pretty obvious that either:

a.) An Islamist group will gain control.

or

b.) A puppet dictator will be installed.

I think b would be in America's best interests so that's what I'm betting on.

Yugo45

21st October 2011, 11:57

It's pretty obvious that either:

a.) An Islamist group will gain control.

or

b.) A puppet dictator will be installed.

I think b would be in America's best interests so that's what I'm betting on.

Or both.

#FF0000

21st October 2011, 12:17

#FF0000

21st October 2011, 12:20

also everyone please shut the fuck up with the "OMG THEY KILLED HIM! SAVAGES! ANIMALS!" especially when you advocate for revolutionary terror and think groups like the IRA or the Maoists in India are just swell.

RadioRaheem84

21st October 2011, 16:07

Do the Indian Maoists display such brutality when dealing with captured enemy?

Rooster

21st October 2011, 16:14

Do the Indian Maoists display such brutality when dealing with captured enemy?

Personally I don't think the IRA blowing the kneecaps off people to be particularly civilised.

dodger

21st October 2011, 16:26

the tyrant is dead !......long live tyranny!!

A Revolutionary Tool

21st October 2011, 18:19

Do the Indian Maoists display such brutality when dealing with captured enemy?
They fucking beheaded a landowner one time...

CommieTroll

21st October 2011, 19:19

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 19:29

This is more about the highlighted line than the actual post: using a particular date in time (or as an indicator of humanity's "modernity") doesn't mean squat. It reminds me of those people who gasp and look surprised when a hate crime against any one minority occurs, or when a riot erupts out of an impoverished neighborhood - as if to say "How could such things happen in the 21st century?"

The reality is, for all our advancements in medicine, technology, and our general understanding of the world and beyond, we have yet to emerge from the urge to off a corrupt and brutal dictator. Did Gaddafi deserve death? That is ultimately up to the person you ask. However, the issues and events of past centuries didn't just vanish upon entering the 21st. Violence should never be glorified, but it's not like it went away with the end of the 20th century.

I have to agree. BUT is not that I feel all these should go away. Back in those days we didn't have the laws we have now, or the institutions. I also realized that the US and Israel are BIG violators of international law them selves.

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 19:29

When he was captured, he was begging them not to shoot him.

So yeah, he was executed.

Typical war crime.

How do you know that he said that?

Le Socialiste

21st October 2011, 19:53

I have to agree. BUT is not that I feel all these should go away. Back in those days we didn't have the laws we have now, or the institutions. I also realized that the US and Israel are BIG violators of international law them selves.

Fair enough, I just wanted to get that out there. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've talked to who believe that, with the advent of the 21st century, all of humanity's issues went out the window. I don't quite know what to blame for such naivety, but it seems so prevalent in Western society (especially in the last decade).

bcbm

21st October 2011, 19:56

That is true, though. These scum are leading Libya into a dark future, while Revolutionaries lead the masses into progression.

as long as the masses don't stand in the way of revolutionary bloodlust, of course

Yes, it has. really? where? as far as i can tell, the terror just ends up eating its own though there are no end of

Those revolutions only failed because they didn't spread. Not to mention the failure of the German revolution because they couldn't adopt the Bolshevik method.

excuses to dismiss this fact

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 20:41

This is fucking sick.. These savages are no better...

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/20/172836.html

Yugo45

21st October 2011, 20:47

How do you know that he said that?

This was my original source:
http://www.sarajevo-x.com/svijet/globus/clanak/111021032

but, since you can't understand that, I just quickly googled it and this is the first thing I found:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/headlines/2011/10/21/gaddafi-dead-colonel-gaddafi-s-last-words-as-rebels-dragged-him-through-street-pleading-for-his-life-115875-23504676/

scarletghoul

21st October 2011, 22:26

The extra-judicial killing of one man shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything at all about this war.. really, what is the point in talking about the geneva convention anymore, it became irrelevant long ago.

Anyway, Muammar Gaddafi is now a martyr, he died a hero defending his people against colonisation. So RIP and infinite respect for that. He's a big inspiration for the people of Libya, Africa, and the whole world, and he has made a big contribution to our eventual victory against the imperialists. He is up there with Allende, Che, Lumumba, and all the others now

Long live Gaddafi
Fuck imperialism

Great1917Revolution

21st October 2011, 22:34

The extrajudicial execution of Muammar al-Gaddafi is doubtlessly a war crime and must be condemned in strongest terms. All individuals responsible for it ought to be brought to trial. Even though he was a murderous criminal and a ruthless tyrant, nobody deserves to die. By the way, I am horrified by the leftist support for the guy who denounced Tunisian revolution as "bolshevik", who was (and remained) Berlusconi's best friend, as well as the buddy of Tony Blair and other New Labour ideologues, most notably Anthony Giddens and Peter Mandelson. How many times the Western imperialist governments helped him stay in power and saved his life? Even when he was America's nemesis, Reagan realised that the only existing opposition to the régime was explicitly Marxist (Libyan National Democratic Front) and prevented British intelligence from toppling him. Not to mention the legitimisation of the aggression against Iraq in 2003 and the "Holy War Against Communism" (“the biggest threat facing man nowadays is the communist theory"). Decree No 493 liberalising the economy and "the opening of Libya" soon followed. I could write thousands of pages about working conditions in Libya, about violent suppression of dissent (mass hangings of students, imprisoning journalists for decades without even charging them, a series of disappearances).

Seth

21st October 2011, 22:36

The coup is complete. The war is over, now get used to it. Were the rebels communists, I don't think anyone would be whining over their mistreatment of Gaddafi. It's not like he hasn't earned every second of it since coming to power.

Smyg

21st October 2011, 22:38

The extrajudicial execution of Muammar al-Gaddafi is doubtlessly a war crime and must be condemned in strongest terms. Even though he was a murderous criminal and a ruthless tyrant, nobody deserves to die.

Except for Hitler and pals.

:mellow:

Seth

21st October 2011, 22:40

Except for Hitler and pals.

:mellow:

And Mussolini. And the entire Russian royal family. And all the fascists executed by Tito and Hoxha in the Balkans.

Great1917Revolution

21st October 2011, 22:43

Except for Hitler and pals.

:mellow:

Not even them, though most top Nazi officials were at least tried. I am against death penalty on principle and there are no exceptions.

Yugo45

21st October 2011, 22:46

Thought this was an interesting read:

Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
01.03.2011

by Antonio Cesar Oliveira

How can you call someone a dictator a leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?

Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media - in the service of the U.S. - praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South
Africa.

Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.

In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.

After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.

Share
Print version
Font Size
Send to friend
But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.

In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.

The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.

Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.

In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.

So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.

Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.

This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.

But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.

Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.

This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.

*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)

He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.

He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."

*Mathaba.net

Translated from the Portuguese and appended by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda.Ru

Void

21st October 2011, 22:59

Gaddafi's death seems to be a planned death. Autopsy report tells that he was shot in the head finally after all the torture. He could easily be kept alive if wanted. He was ordered to be shot. They did not want to bring him to court, they were afraid of what he would tell, he was also accused of crimes he had never committed. The world is a circus.. There is absolutely no international organization to be trusted, everything in the hands of imperialists, media etc...

Rest in Peace Gaddafi... His positives were certainly more than his negatives in my book. He certainly did not deserve such a death. Man with guts, he could have easily fled to Venezuella or somewhere else, he was invited. But when all what was planned against him started he made a speech and said to everybody that he will die in his country if he needs to. He did so and did not commit suicide as Hitler did, faced torture and died.

Syrian president Esed in that matter is accused of crimes he never commits. I have spoken with people from the region. It is all media exaggeration. Angelina Jolie and everything... come on... This is disgusting.

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 23:05

Did you guys see the last video?

Yugo45

21st October 2011, 23:12

Did you guys see the last video?

Which one?

R_P_A_S

21st October 2011, 23:17

Which one?

the video of the rebels mocking gaddafi's corpse and taking "funny" pictures with it..

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/20...20/172836.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/20/172836.html)

Tim Cornelis

21st October 2011, 23:21

The extra-judicial killing of one man shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything at all about this war

True. Both sides (that includes your hero Gadaffi) executed people.

Anyway, Muammar Gaddafi is now a martyr, he died a hero defending his people against colonisation

I'm pretty sure a significant part of the population ("his people") fought against him.

So RIP and infinite respect for that. He's a big inspiration for the people of Libya, Africa, and the whole world

Perhaps an inspiration for tyrants like Mugabe and Kim Jung Il, an inspiration of managing to stay in power for so long--something they aspire to.

and he has made a big contribution to our eventual victory against the imperialists.

How?

He is up there with Allende, Che, Lumumba, and all the others now

I'm no fan of Allende or Che, but it's insulting to them to compare them to a cockroach like Gadaffi.

Long live Gaddafi

Ough, wrongly timed.

EDIT: I suppose you also admire Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, he should be respected and is an inspiration to you since he is fighting imperialists? Nevermind the atrocities committed under his command? And now the US is moving into Uganda, you think Joseph Kony is admirable too?

Tim Cornelis

21st October 2011, 23:24

the video of the rebels mocking gaddafi's corpse and taking "funny" pictures with it..

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/20...20/172836.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/20/172836.html)

Boohoo. He ruled Libya like an absolute monarch, he imprisoned homosexuals, cut off limbs, allowed for no free speech, and so on.

Normally I'm a very empathic person, but in this case I enjoy seeing the suffering of this tyrant knowing it were his last moments on earth. After 42 years of living like a god collectively exploiting and oppressing the country, finally his final moments were constant agony. Nothing more beautiful than seeing a tyrant suffer, be it a Mussolini, or Gadaffi.

What would you do if, say, you were ruled and oppressed by a fascist dictator for 20 years and then he is captured? Would you not humiliate, spit, curse, and demean him? I'm not sure whether I'm capable of executing someone, but if I were to face such a man I might pull the trigger personally.

This man deserves no respect, he's less than a dog--like all other tyrants.

tir1944

21st October 2011, 23:30

And the entire Russian royal family.They were shot because the Whites closed in the city and there was danger of the Royal Family coming into their hands.Otherwise they wouldn't have been.
They sure as hell didn't have their bloodied corpses paraded around.

Zostrianos

21st October 2011, 23:30

I'm no fan of Allende or Che, but it's insulting to them to compare them.

Allende wasn't a dictator, he was a good president, a true Socialist

Tim Cornelis

21st October 2011, 23:34

They were shot because the Whites closed in the city and there was danger of the Royal Family coming into their hands.Otherwise they wouldn't have been.
They sure as hell didn't have their bloodied corpses paraded around.

He should've been executed regardless (not the children). Nicholas II was a tyrant and an execution would have been justified.

Allende wasn't a dictator, he was a good president, a true Socialist

That's why it's insulting to compare him to Gadaffi. I'm no fan of Allende since he was a president, but if I had to choose any president he would be listed quite high (if not first).

RadioRaheem84

21st October 2011, 23:35

They fucking beheaded a landowner one time...

did the really?

tir1944

21st October 2011, 23:37

Nicholas II was a tyrant and an execution would be justified.
Ok,i won't disagree with you about that but the fact is that he was sent to house arrest,not shot after the Revoltion.

Libertador

21st October 2011, 23:38

International Law was written by Capitalists for Capitalists.

Who the fuck cares. He deserved it.

R_P_A_S

22nd October 2011, 00:24

Boohoo. He ruled Libya like an absolute monarch, he imprisoned homosexuals, cut off limbs, allowed for no free speech, and so on.

Normally I'm a very empathic person, but in this case I enjoy seeing the suffering of this tyrant knowing it were his last moments on earth. After 42 years of living like a god collectively exploiting and oppressing the country, finally his final moments were constant agony. Nothing more beautiful than seeing a tyrant suffer, be it a Mussolini, or Gadaffi.

What would you do if, say, you were ruled and oppressed by a fascist dictator for 20 years and then he is captured? Would you not humiliate, spit, curse, and demean him? I'm not sure whether I'm capable of executing someone, but if I were to face such a man I might pull the trigger personally.

This man deserves no respect, he's less than a dog--like all other tyrants.

I hate hypothetical questions. How am I supposed to answer that? Regardless.. that's a dead body. Even for them, as Muslims this is a shameful violation.

Tim Cornelis

22nd October 2011, 00:27

I hate hypothetical questions. How am I supposed to answer that? [QUOTE]

You could place yourself in the shoes of a person living under the reign of fascist terror for 20 years...?

[QUOTE]Regardless.. that's a dead body. Even for them, as Muslims this is a shameful violation.

Then why do you think it's shameful (or don't you)? In any case, they are not as Islamist as we fear then ;)

R_P_A_S

22nd October 2011, 00:35

[QUOTE=R_P_A_S;2270855]I hate hypothetical questions. How am I supposed to answer that? [QUOTE]

You could place yourself in the shoes of a person living under the reign of fascist terror for 20 years...?

Then why do you think it's shameful (or don't you)? In any case, they are not as Islamist as we fear then ;)

No I can't place my self in someones shoes that lived in Libya... and if anyone can tell you this, i think they are full of it. I know there were some serious human rights violations to the people of Libya... I'm not saying this guy was a saint. But this is supposed to be the military of the new Libyan republic that NATO is supporting, that my taxes are financing.. they just show Taliban like behaviour by murdering a prisoner of war and then ridiculing his cadaver for TV. I'm a human being at the end of the day... If you can't see that as flat out wrong and shameful.. then I don't know.. maybe you grew up around violence and human life is cheap to you?

Искра

22nd October 2011, 00:36

A bullet fired in the air, would not come down with the same velocity it went up. Once it used up the energy it got from being fired from the gun, it would simply far back to earth with the same speed as if it had been dropped out of a airplane. Also I have seen photos and video of militants of every ideology (including socialist and communist) doing the same thing.
I know for at least 5 cases when people died from bullet fired in the air. It dosen't happen offten.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd October 2011, 00:40

did the really?
Yeah it's in the Spring Thunder thread, somewhere amongst the 20 something pages, have luck finding that story :D.

But I looked it up and it seems I was wrong, it wasn't a landowner, it was a anti-Naxal Cobra force:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-16/india/28295388_1_crpf-jawan-headless-body-kanhaiya-yadav

Although that wasn't the first or last time, this time a police informant:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/naxals-behead-suspected-police-informer-66057

Although they may have beheaded a landowner and it's just not on the first page of a google search of "Naxals behead landowner" because I could have sworn reading that somewhere on here.

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:22

The then future rulers of Italy did this:

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mussolini-corpse.jpg

... but Italy didn't sink into chaos or a savage fascist dictatorship because of that.

Luís Henrique

Mussolini was a fascist mass murderer, who killed, by the way, hundreds of thousands of Libyans. He wasn't a petty dictator like Qaddafi who fell out with his imperial masters. On the middle east tyrant scale, Qaddafi was nowhere near the first rank. Not even in the same category with, say, the Algerian military dictatorship next door, to say nothing of Bahrain or Jordan or other US supported dictatorships and monarchies.

And the western puppet "Libyan rebels" are just as bad as Qaddafi, and have been lynching every African they can get their hands on now that they are the dictators. And handing over all the oil to the multinationals of course.

Qaddafi's crime is that, while he was recently licking the US and Brit boots, he didn't used to, and the CIA and MI-5 never forget.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:25

Hey...I'm pretty sure these guys executed prisoners after the victory of their revolution.

http://www.argentour.com/images/che_guevara_fidel_castro.jpg

There was also a very wide and bloodthirsty call for the deaths of those prisoners too. That doesn't condemn it as morally wrong in and of itself.

Well, no actually. Batista butchers were executed, sure. But they got trials, with lots of mass participation.

Verdict of the masses on Batista torturers:

"Al Paredon." Translates into English as that old New Left slogan,
"Up Against The Wall."

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:28

So a bloody revolution is fine but a bloody reactionary coup isn't fine? :confused:

Um ... yeah?

Though I do think it is better to give mass murdering reactionaries a trial first if possible. That may not have been the case with Mussolini, just as it wasn't when, for example, the Bolsheviks executed the Tsar and his family. If German troops or White Guards are on the way planning to "liberate" the prisoners, maybe you don't have time to stand on ceremony.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:34

You make shit arguments based on nothing but your own personal feelings. It's bad because you think it's bad or it's good because you think it is good. You make the same arguments that tea-baggers do, only against different people.

Well no. The question was, is there a difference between revolutionaries shooting murderous right wing reactionaries and right wing reactionaries shooting revolutionaries seeking to liberate the world from oppression, and the answer, quite properly, was yes.

That's like asking if there is a difference between good and evil.

Of course, that general principle doesn't really relate to the argument here, since there is no agreement here as to whether what happened in Libya was a justified, glorious rebellion vs. dictatorship or a right wing coup on behalf of imperialism.

But as a general principle, the only way the question asked can possibly be answered is with a yes.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:45

Oh save the sob story, if this had been Mubarak (or any other old U.S. backed dictator) you would most likely be be cheering and justly so. It's funny how ML's love to use the Robespierre quote that says "Don't wave the kings bloody rags in my face" (I forget the exact quote) until someone they like gets killed, then it becomes "Think of the poor and feable old man, those monsters brutally murdered!"
While the motivations for killing Mussolini and Gaddafi were vastly different, the actual acts of killing were pretty much the same. And many people here are attacking the act of killing Gaddafi, saying it's wrong to execute someone on the spot, instead they should be taken captive and give a fair trial. However if you are going to attack the killing of Gaddafi on those grounds, you have to apply the same logic to the killing of Mussolini.

These were partisans, and the SS was just a few miles away most likely. No time for a trial. Nothing like the current situation in Libya, with the rebels dancing in the streets and it's all over.

Exact same thing with the Tsar and his family. Originally the Bolsheviks did plan to give Nicky and Alexandra trials, but that wasn't possible.

And Louis XIV and Madame "let them eat cake" got completely fair trials, were convicted, and got appropriate sentences.

Now, later in the Terror there were problems, Robespierre throwing all his political opponents to the guillotines, but the trial of the king and queen were good models of revolutionary justice.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 01:59

He should've been executed regardless (not the children). Nicholas II was a tyrant and an execution would have been justified.

That's why it's insulting to compare him to Gadaffi. I'm no fan of Allende since he was a president, but if I had to choose any president he would be listed quite high (if not first).

Given the way Tsarism operated, the whole family had to be executed, as otherwise one of the children could have been the banner for Tsarist restoration.

An old, old story in Russian history, every time you had a civil war or a rebellion you'd have a real or phony Romanov as its banner and symbol, for centuries.

Even with killing them all, you had all sorts of phony Tsarist pretenders running around. Nobody took them seriously however, as the Tsar's servants, who could have verified a pretender believably, were all executed too before the Whites got their hands on them.

If the Tsar and his family could have been kept safely prisoner, none of this would have been necessary and none of it would have happened. You could even have had a "last emperor" scene like in China, with Romanov children raised in workers' families and given a proper education, and even Nicky perhaps rehabilitable, if for no other reason than that he was not very bright.

Not Alexandra though! The most famous quote from her is "the Russian people love the whip."

-M.H.-

P.S.: Allende is overrated. In his last year in office, he cracked down on striking copper miners and appointed a fella named Pinochet to head the army. He died bravely however.

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 02:02

Yeah it's in the Spring Thunder thread, somewhere amongst the 20 something pages, have luck finding that story :D.

But I looked it up and it seems I was wrong, it wasn't a landowner, it was a anti-Naxal Cobra force:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-16/india/28295388_1_crpf-jawan-headless-body-kanhaiya-yadav

Although that wasn't the first or last time, this time a police informant:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/naxals-behead-suspected-police-informer-66057

Although they may have beheaded a landowner and it's just not on the first page of a google search of "Naxals behead landowner" because I could have sworn reading that somewhere on here.

That sounds more like the normal course of class struggle than an atrocity.

But hey, they are Maoists after all. I wouldn't care to be a Trotskyist or an anarchist in a Naxalite village. Not safe I am sure.

-M.H.-

Hiero

22nd October 2011, 02:58

Not even them, though most top Nazi officials were at least tried. I am against death penalty on principle and there are no exceptions.

The only good thing the Israeli Government did was bring Eichmann to trial and hang him. It also set the precedent that you can't defed yourself under state privelage, the "i was doing my job".

Bardo

22nd October 2011, 03:50

Fucking animals. These are the future rulers of Libya.

The world is slowly degenerating into a massive hell hole.

Meh

It's not like they didn't give him ample time to leave. Gaddafi said he was going to die in Libya and that's what happened.

ComradeOmar

22nd October 2011, 04:01

Do you know what they were shouting? They are Islamist filth.

Our comrades in Italy killed Mussolini on behalf of the proletariat.

These Islamist scum bags killed gadaffi on behalf of their Imperialist masters.

Had it been a worker's revolution and proletarians executing gadaffi, I'd have no problem.

These are fucking vicious animals, here. Thugs and mercenaries.
"islamist filth" oh please get real you fool no matter what religon you follow or if you even follow one, the fact remains that this man murdered thousands of innocent people and if they killed him shouting "God is great" why does that make them filth? Also your dream of proletariat revolutionary killings were also barbaric.

Yugo45

22nd October 2011, 08:15

I'm just wondering..

Does anyone have any real source of Gaddafi killing "innocent civilians", or is it just something you heard on Fox news?

Kornilios Sunshine

22nd October 2011, 08:33

Tablo

22nd October 2011, 08:38

I don't think this matters.It matters that those Libyans who killed him are cruel,and must not be marked as part of the human kind.I am not pro Gaddafi but whatever the fuck anyone is,you cannot be so cruel to kill him like that.And believe me,now the Libyan state would be even more shit.
I mean, I fucking hate Gaddafi and his reactionary regime, but watching them shoot him like that makes me sick. To say they should not be marked as human makes no sense. They are clearly human. Humans can be incredibly cruel or unbelievably good. Who knows what will happen to Libya. I hope they won't be a NATO puppet state, but I guess we won't know the real outcome for a couple months... I wish the people of Libya the best.

Kornilios Sunshine

22nd October 2011, 08:43

I mean, I fucking hate Gaddafi and his reactionary regime, but watching them shoot him like that makes me sick. To say they should not be marked as human makes no sense. They are clearly human. Humans can be incredibly cruel or unbelievably good. Who knows what will happen to Libya. I hope they won't be a NATO puppet state, but I guess we won't know the real outcome for a couple months... I wish the people of Libya the best.
What I meant is actually they showed so much cruelty that the don't make themselves look humans.I really doubt thought that Libya won't be a NATO puppet state..solidarity with Libya.

brigadista

22nd October 2011, 08:53

why is anyone surprised at what happened to Gaddaffi? these "rebels" are people that supported a NATO invasion of their country, supported NATO bombing Libya into the ground and who will no doubt personally profit from the new regime- anyone who has seen the Benghazi lynching videos will not be surprised.

Where was the left when NATO was bombing and killing thousands of Libyan civilians? Condemnation of NATO is NOT support for Gaddaffi

Why did it take so long for NATO to take Sirte? because Gaddafi had a lot of support -

AMazed how much people on this site believe the press coverage

Like Iraq and Afghanistan- when the truth comes out about Libya [if it ever does] its going to be a very different story

black magick hustla

22nd October 2011, 10:59

This whole thing is pretty much comparable to the Ceausescus being shot like beasts by some fascistoid army officers, Saddam Hussein being slowly hanged while religious fundamentalist scumbags chant the name of their leader and capture footages on their cell phones, etc.: it doesn't take any sympathy for the victim to understand that the entire affair is a simple Mafia-style payback liquidation and that there is absolutely no use in trying to attach some kind of progressive politics to it.

i think it is pretty disturbing and honestly i am not in the side of the rebels, but that type of "populist" justice has been a staple of basically every large scale political movement outside the legal framework. blood for blood, sangre por sangre. the partisans hung missoulinis body from a meat hook, as revenge for mussolini doing that to partisans. i imagine the rebels demand also blood for the blood that was spilled from their side.

scarletghoul

22nd October 2011, 12:47

The coup is complete. The war is over
No its not. Resistance will continue.

Smyg

22nd October 2011, 12:50

scarletghoul

22nd October 2011, 12:54

I personally wager there will, even when the military forces are completely defeated, be some kind of resistance going on from the die-hard loyalists. After all, there's still some of Gaddafi's family left alive.Plus loads of guns etc. As the NTC's policies become clearer more people probably will rebel against them. Even if all the gaddafi family was wiped out, libyans would still resist

Smyg

22nd October 2011, 12:57

Of course there'll be that kind of resistance, I rather meant specifically Gaddafi loyalist resistance.

Tim Cornelis

22nd October 2011, 13:20

And the western puppet "Libyan rebels" are just as bad as Qaddafi, and have been lynching every African they can get their hands on now that they are the dictators. And handing over all the oil to the multinationals of course.

Doesn't mean the execution of Gadaffi wasn't just.

I'm just wondering..

Does anyone have any real source of Gaddafi killing "innocent civilians", or is it just something you heard on Fox news?

The reason for humanitarian intervention, a supposed massacre in a village or city (sirte?), is highly doubted indeed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. But Gadaffi certainly has blood on his hands.

I don't think this matters.It matters that those Libyans who killed him are cruel,and must not be marked as part of the human kind.I am not pro Gaddafi but whatever the fuck anyone is,you cannot be so cruel to kill him like that.And believe me,now the Libyan state would be even more shit.

Cruel? Go cry me a river. You think Che never executed someone? This guy deserved it.

why is anyone surprised at what happened to Gaddaffi? these "rebels" are people that supported a NATO invasion of their country, supported NATO bombing Libya into the ground and who will no doubt personally profit from the new regime- anyone who has seen the Benghazi lynching videos will not be surprised.

Actually, rebels at first didn't want intervention until they started losing ground. You would accept the help of NATO if it could lead to victory, no matter how opportunistic it may be, too. The lynching of people (of course without trial) is wrong and unaccaptable, but for tyrannical rulers I'd like to make an exception.

Where was the left when NATO was bombing and killing thousands of Libyan civilians? Condemnation of NATO is NOT support for Gaddaffi

What are you talking about, most of the left condemned it and some went out to protest.

Why did it take so long for NATO to take Sirte? because Gaddafi had a lot of support -

Why did it take so long to take Berlin? Because Hitler had a lot of support. What's your point?

AMazed how much people on this site believe the press coverage

I don't believe it all, but you cannot deny Gadaffi was a tyrant.

Yugo45

22nd October 2011, 15:36

Why did it take so long to take Berlin? Because Hitler had a lot of support. What's your point?

His point was that people of Libya supported Gaddafi.

Hitler comparison is irrelevant here because, yes, Hitler did have a support from the German people. And, yes, Hitler did kill everyone else who isn't German. But Gaddafi didn't.

So, in short, the point was that Libyan people didn't feel opressed under Gaddafi, and still support him.

Anyway, here's a newest video of those Islamist mercenary scum torturing a 70 year old unarmed man:
http://www.sarajevo-x.com/svijet/globus/clanak/111022046

Enjoy!

brigadista

22nd October 2011, 18:48

Actually, rebels at first didn't want intervention until they started losing ground. You would accept the help of NATO if it could lead to victory, no matter how opportunistic it may be, too. The lynching of people (of course without trial) is wrong and unaccaptable, but for tyrannical rulers I'd like to make an exception.

so you gonna make an exception for henry kissinger, george bush, tony blair, sarkozi, belusconi? they have as much blood on their hands as Gaddafi...just saying - also they didn't want a trial of Gaddafi because of the shit that would go down-

watch the civil war unfold now .. cant believe leftists are supporting NATO intervention..

A Marxist Historian

22nd October 2011, 18:50

Doesn't mean the execution of Gadaffi wasn't just.
...
Actually, rebels at first didn't want intervention until they started losing ground. You would accept the help of NATO if it could lead to victory, no matter how opportunistic it may be, too.

OK, so now everybody should know that Goti is purchaseable, watch this guy.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Once they went on NATO's payroll they all became puppets. And they were calling for a NATO "no fly zone" Kurdistan style from Day One.

And they were a completely unsavory crew even in the first few weeks before they made it obvious. Former Qaddafi officials, CIA agents, tribalists and Al Quaida types, all mixed together into one ugly package, with absolutely zero working class involvement in the rebellion. The "revolutionary committees" of the first few weeks were made up of professors, lawyers, doctors and chiropractors.

The actual working class of Libya is mostly foreign, Arab or African. It's an oilocracy like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. While Qaddafi's crew were beating up on the Arabs and driving them out, the "rebels" were engaged in racist mass murder of the Africans.

-M.H.-

brigadista

22nd October 2011, 18:53

its a disgraceful western land grab/oilgrab/grand theft simple as

Rainsborough

22nd October 2011, 18:58

I heard that the NTC have called for an inquiry into the killing, and the commander of the rebel forces said no. Hmm, another Gaddafi in the making perhaps?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd October 2011, 19:22

Why did it take so long for NATO to take Sirte? because Gaddafi had a lot of support -

Yeah Gaddafi did have a lot of support, in Sirte. This was not something which existed in the rest of the country however. Notice how Tripoli fell not too long after the rebels arrived at the gates of the city. The only places which held out were one or two neighborhoods and the guards at Gaddafi's extensive castle/bunker/palace.

FYI, Sirte, which has a population of 100,000 compared to Tripoli's 1.5 million, is populated by Gaddafi's personal clan and the city has received lavish spending since he took power.

His point was that people of Libya supported Gaddafi.

Hitler comparison is irrelevant here because, yes, Hitler did have a support from the German people. And, yes, Hitler did kill everyone else who isn't German. But Gaddafi didn't.

So, in short, the point was that Libyan people didn't feel opressed under Gaddafi, and still support him.

Then how do you explain the protests against his rule on February 17th? Or the fact that Tripoli fell quickly? Or the fact that Gaddafi's soldiers were never able to fully put down the rebellions in places like Misuratah and the Berber areas? Many Libyans did support him but it is ridiculous to argue that he had some huge majority of support. For one thing, air power alone has never toppled a popular government, and the disorganized rebel militias would have never been able to had there not been a great deal of dissatisfaction with Gaddafi.

I'm just wondering..

Does anyone have any real source of Gaddafi killing "innocent civilians", or is it just something you heard on Fox news?

(1) On day 1 of the uprising, Gaddafi's forces targeted protesters with violence.

(2) Gaddafi has given military and material support to Idi Amin, the RUF in Sierra Leone, and Charles Taylor in Liberia. These people killed tens of thousands of innocent people in their wars to gain control over the wealth of their nations.

(3) There is a well-documented case where Gaddafi killed over 1,000 alleged Islamists in the 90s-granted some of them probably deserved to be in prison for the rest of their lives but they did not receive any kind of trial or anything to establish their guilt in a public forum.

(4) There is a well-documented case from the recent uprising which I have posted about of a woman who accused Gaddafi forces of rape during the recent uprising, and the woman was then arrested and slandered by the government which said she was a prostitute, insane, drunk, etc

(5) The Libyan justice system lacked transparency and was used to persecute those who criticized the regime.

(6) It was illegal to be a homosexual in Gaddafi's Libya and it could get you sent to prison for up to 5 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Libya) (granted, it is not necessarily any *worse* in this respect than most governments in the area but it is still proof that the government there is NOT PROGRESSIVE.)

(7) His intelligence agency used to assassinate dissidents abroad

(8) His government bombed an airplane in Lockerbie Scotland, killing hundreds of innocent people.

(9) His government tortured Islamist terrorists on behalf of the US government and the UK

Not all of those are "deaths" but some are and they all are horrid human rights abuses from the Gaddafi government.

And they were a completely unsavory crew even in the first few weeks before they made it obvious. Former Qaddafi officials, CIA agents, tribalists and Al Quaida types, all mixed together into one ugly package, with absolutely zero working class involvement in the rebellion. The "revolutionary committees" of the first few weeks were made up of professors, lawyers, doctors and chiropractors.

The actual working class of Libya is mostly foreign, Arab or African. It's an oilocracy like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. While Qaddafi's crew were beating up on the Arabs and driving them out, the "rebels" were engaged in racist mass murder of the Africans.

Sigh, so I suppose we shouldn't support protesters in Bahrain against the king because they are unemployed Shiites who lynched Sunnis during the protests? And because the working-class in Bahrain are mostly South-Asians while the Shiite Arabs are pushed into becoming peasants or unemployed?

As for there being "no working class involvement", I would like to see a source for this. Yes many working class people in Libya were migrants but there were many working class Libyans too who joined in. And the charge that they are all cia agents, islamists and tribalists is a tired claim. Those factions played a major part in the rebellion but arguing that it sullies the legitimacy of all the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya is the same kind of shit that the king of Bahrain pulled to discredit the protesters when he said that they were all Iranian agents. Do you really think all the women marching in the streets of Benghazi with their flags were Islamists and CIA agents??? The anti-Gaddafi movement in Libya would have never gotten off the ground if there were also not a large contingent of everyday, working Libyans from Benghazi to Misratah to the mountains. A few CIA agents and crazy religious fanatics could not have toppled a well-established and popular government in 6 months with or without air support. The only logical explanation is that there was an organic anti-Gaddafi protest movement, and Islamists/CIA-backed groups represented the most organized opposition around and so were best suited to take it over. You just insult all the rebels and Libyans who are anti-Gaddafi as if they are all backers of this ideology. Face it, for all the faults of the leadership of the rebels, the rebellion itself reflected the contradictions of Libyan society.

Tim Cornelis

22nd October 2011, 20:12

His point was that people of Libya supported Gaddafi.

Hitler comparison is irrelevant here because, yes, Hitler did have a support from the German people. And, yes, Hitler did kill everyone else who isn't German. But Gaddafi didn't.

So, in short, the point was that Libyan people didn't feel opressed under Gaddafi, and still support him.

That's why they revolted against him, because they didn't feel oppressed?

Enjoy!

FU, arschloch. Just because I think it's great Gadaffi was killed does not mean I support the new regime of Islamist theocratic monarchists.

so you gonna make an exception for henry kissinger, george bush, tony blair, sarkozi, belusconi? they have as much blood on their hands as Gaddafi...just saying - also they didn't want a trial of Gaddafi because of the shit that would go down-

I think each of those scumbags named should be tried (though I'm not sure about the role of Sarkozy and Berlusconi in illegal wars). But if, say, A Henry Kissinger was executed I wouldn't care.

watch the civil war unfold now .. cant believe leftists are supporting NATO intervention..

Are you talking about me? I certainly don't support NATO intervention. Both brigadista and yugo45 apply the false dilemma fallacy: I think Gadaffi's execution was righteous, therefore I must necessarily advocate/support the alternative: a Western puppet/Islamist theocracy, or that therefore I don't want to see Bush face trial. No, I support neither.

OK, so now everybody should know that Goti is purchaseable, watch this guy.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Once they went on NATO's payroll they all became puppets. And they were calling for a NATO "no fly zone" Kurdistan style from Day One.

Say, you are fighting for a cause you believe in and are willing to die for. And for some reason NATO offers you help, at first you refuse because you want to do it yourself, but you are realising your cause is lost unless you receive help from a superior military power. I would accept their help and as soon as my cause is realised, I would kick out NATO's puppet.

If I don't accept I will loose. If I accept I risk becoming a NATO-puppet, but it's better than losing, because it's a risk you might be able to avoid.

And they were a completely unsavory crew even in the first few weeks before they made it obvious. Former Qaddafi officials, CIA agents, tribalists and Al Quaida types, all mixed together into one ugly package, with absolutely zero working class involvement in the rebellion. The "revolutionary committees" of the first few weeks were made up of professors, lawyers, doctors and chiropractors.

The actual working class of Libya is mostly foreign, Arab or African. It's an oilocracy like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. While Qaddafi's crew were beating up on the Arabs and driving them out, the "rebels" were engaged in racist mass murder of the Africans.

-M.H.-

And that's false dilemma #3. Just because I think the extra judicial execution of Gadaffi is just, does not mean I support 1) the opposing force 2) NATO intervention.

RadioRaheem84

22nd October 2011, 20:23

Sinister, your list of Gaddafi attrocities are a bit of an overreach, almost Hitchean like.

I agree with what you are trying to say, that he was not progressive, but this painting of him being akin to Suharto and his downfall was like the downfall of Mussolini is overkill.

khad

22nd October 2011, 20:29

Now that the mass raping, worker-lynching fundies are out of prison, we can see who was right all along.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd October 2011, 20:33

aristos

22nd October 2011, 22:34

OK, let's get a few things straight here:

- no, it is not evil in itself to strategically seek help from a reactionary power (in this case NATO), if the rebels were communists this wouldn't be a problem, since assuming they are principled they will cast away the filthy hand that fed them. After all what good are capitalists if we cannot milk them for their resources?

- The rebels, however, are clearly not even not communist but outright reactionary. Everything they espouse and stand for will make the country worse. Especially since it is now so utterly devastated that it will need to be rebuilt from scratch. We all of course know who will do the "rebuilding" (hint Iraq).

- Most accusations against Gaddafi here are of purely moralist liberal nature that boil down to him simply not being a nice guy. Now even the "not nice guy" part is simply some amorphous gut feeling that has no substance to it.

- Some seem to bear a grudge against Gaddafi for giving both verbal and material support to unsavoury individuals/organizations. These people seem to forget that Gaddafi gave just as much support to progressive organizations too. This means if you and your tendency were waging a real revolutionary struggle somewhere across the globe, you would in all likelihood also had gotten material support from the Colonel had you asked. Provided any of your activity was of any relevance beyond internet posturing.

- We do know that the standard of living rose dramatically after Gaddafi took power. In lieu of better alternatives (yes, you are obliged to provide credible alternatives that exist outside your insurrectionist fantasy) it would have been better for him to stay in power instead of the NTC.

- We also know that there is a ridiculous amount of media bias concerning the destruction in this civil war, with the actions of the rebels sanitized and Gaddafi atrocities fabricated (or at least enormously exaggerated). We also can be pretty sure that "the people" of Lybia are not predominantly anti-Gaddafi. This is more a case of the supporters staying low while the antagonists celebrate.

- Even if we disregard the fact that Gaddafi was winning before NATO got involved (so no mass opposition to his rule) it is actually possible for a small but highly trained and splendidly equipped force to disrupt the workings of a country (especially a small one) and even bring it to its knees, at least for enough time that supplementary forces (the rebels) shift the balance of power permanently. Plus the aerial campaign (attack helicopters in addition to high altitude jets).

Mitja

22nd October 2011, 22:36

wknw5UwClFI

ha awesome video man

He got what he deserved

Jose Gracchus

22nd October 2011, 22:45

I think if Noam Chomsky had published something that dealt with hysterics over "the Geneva Convention being violated!!!!", the same Gaddhafists squealing over their dead hero would be whining about liberalism.

aristos

22nd October 2011, 23:15

Who the fuck gives a damn about the Geneva Convention?
It is only relevant in as much as it points out yet more to imperialist hypocrisy.

Yugo45

23rd October 2011, 12:33

Tim Cornelis

23rd October 2011, 12:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQKc9CLKK4k

Scum..

This is obviously a war crime. Not only by Geneva convention, but by common sense and human sanity.

Whoever supports this and claims that "he got what he deserved" need to have his head checked.

What are they doing? Are they... sticking something in his... behind? That's sick.

However, this is a man who did these things to his enemies, or allowed his inferiors to do so, on a massive scale. His execution was just.

Why is that people who support the most atrocious and/or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao) are now complaining and whining about one man--a criminal tyrant--being "mistreated"?

aristos

23rd October 2011, 12:52

What we learn from the "Gaddafi experience" is that in this day and age you cannot rely on strongman tactics and regional popularity any more. Since neither an equal counterbalance to the US hegemony exists, nor can any country regardless of its politics be exempt from falling victim to imperialist greed any revolutionary organization that for whatever reason manages to grab power in any region will not be able to survive and flaunt openly their ideology - from day 1 it will have to launch a deliberate and intricate campaign of tactical boot-licking, PR stunts, disinformation, sowing confusion and general avoidance of an open permanent political and economical structures as cornerstones of its vitality that could be easily knocked down.
Furthermore in such an event the organization will be both forced to play imperialist rivals against each other as well as make promises and superficial concessions to all important geopolitical players, all the while secretly creating a defense/sabotage infrastructure inside of the territory of their potential enemies.

Even if we agree that Gaddafi was certainly no incredible revolutionary, his biggest mistake in a world that changed radically since 1990 was to rely on native support instead of carrying the war into NATO territory - he had the finances, but not the ideas.

Yugo45

23rd October 2011, 13:15

Why is that people who support the most atrocious and/or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao) are now complaining and whining about one man--a criminal tyrant--being "mistreated"?

Authoritarian regimes.. Stalin and Mao.. Alright. But Lenin and Tito? Please... I might not know how much "atrocious and authoritarian" Lenin's "regime" was, but I can guarantee you that Tito's regime is far from it. Sure, it did have some authoritarian elements. But it being a most atrocious and authoritarian regime in the 20th century? Sorry, but that could only come from someone who doesn't know shit about Tito or Tito's Yugoslavia.

And to answer you the Gaddafi part.. Well.. Let's just say that the part of the World I live in doesn't get brainwashed with western propaganda every day, unlike, say, Western Europe. And even if we did, we still know who Gaddafi is and what he did for Libyans and the whole African continent. I talked to a few of my Dutch friends, and I heard so many absurd bullshit myths about Gaddafi that they all beilived in, that I seriously started to question every news I hear. Before the imperialist agression on Libya happened, many Bosnians were working in factories in Libya and all of them can only say good things about life there and say that the majority of the population supports Gaddafi.

Why should I choose to beilive the people who profit from the Libyan war, and get all of their information from the leaders of the mercenaries who call themselves "rebels", over the people who absolutely don't gain anything from the war, but have lived there and know the real facts?

Tim Cornelis

23rd October 2011, 14:38

Authoritarian regimes.. Stalin and Mao.. Alright. But Lenin and Tito? Please... I might not know how much "atrocious and authoritarian" Lenin's "regime" was, but I can guarantee you that Tito's regime is far from it. Sure, it did have some authoritarian elements. But it being a most atrocious and authoritarian regime in the 20th century? Sorry, but that could only come from someone who doesn't know shit about Tito or Tito's Yugoslavia.

Tito may not have fallen in the most authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, however he did imprison political opponents, for example in Goli Otok prison camp, and killed thousands of political opponents.

And to answer you the Gaddafi part.. Well.. Let's just say that the part of the World I live in doesn't get brainwashed with western propaganda every day, unlike, say, Western Europe. And even if we did, we still know who Gaddafi is and what he did for Libyans and the whole African continent. I talked to a few of my Dutch friends, and I heard so many absurd bullshit myths about Gaddafi that they all beilived in, that I seriously started to question every news I hear. Before the imperialist agression on Libya happened, many Bosnians were working in factories in Libya and all of them can only say good things about life there

I get my news sources from all over the world, from RussiaToday (anti-Western) to AlJazeera (anti-Gadaffi). I'm not "brainwashed". All my criticisms directed at Gadaffi are based on well reported factual events. The fact that you defend Gadaffi by refering to the economic situation in Libya shows how ridiculous your defence of him actually is. Again, I could go to Berlin in 1942 and ask what people thought about Hitler and they would almost all acclaim him as a great leader. Perhaps you should speak to the people imprisoned and tortured by Gadaffi's men.

say that the majority of the population supports Gaddafi.

No doubt there is a significant part of the population who supports Gadaffi, but again... Hitler... elections..? Just because the majority supports him, does not mean I should.

Why should I choose to beilive the people who profit from the Libyan war, and get all of their information from the leaders of the mercenaries who call themselves "rebels", over the people who absolutely don't gain anything from the war, but have lived there and know the real facts?

You shouldn't believe what the NTC says, they are liars and Islamists. You should believe the facts though, and they show Gaddafi being an authoritarian, excessively wealthy, asshole.

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 14:59

Except Che and Castro weren't puppets of Imperialism and the world's elite Bourgeoisie, and they didn't call for Sharia law, either.

A revolution must be bloody, violent and filled with terror. However reactionaries like the ones in the videos weren't going through with a revolution, they were going through with a reactionary coup

See, you people post a video of Gaddafy being horribly mistreated by his captors. This is supposed to "prove" that Libya is descending into hell. Then when we remind you that nasty vengeance has been exacted against other tyrants too - tyrants that you have no will to lionise - you retort that "their" terror and savagery is evil, but "our" terror and savagery is good.

And so, there is a petitio principi here: the brutal execution of Gaddafy only "proves" that the "new rulers" of Libya are brutal enemies of the people because somehow we already know that they are... brutal enemies of the people. If somehow we knew that they were valiant revolutionaries fighting on behalf of the people, their behaviour - including the horrible lynching of Gaddafy - would be justified, in name of the revolution.

In fewer words, if you don't think that stupid, mindless violence, in and of itself, is a bad thing, then don't use pictures or videos of stupid, mindless violence in order to try to make a point. Maybe, just maybe, we aren't the "liberal", pacifist hippies you figure we are, and won't be impressed by stupid, mindless violence as much as you think we should.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 15:19

And Mussolini. And the entire Russian royal family. And all the fascists executed by Tito and Hoxha in the Balkans.

... and everybody I dislike...

Once you start, you can't really stop; there is no reasonable line you can draw. We should oppose all those acts of violence. But we should also understand why they happen; we can't really condone the lynching of an elderly man, but we can't also pretend that Gaddafy was just any elderly man, instead of the brutal commie-killer dictator he was.

Luís Henrique

Yugo45

23rd October 2011, 15:56

Tito may not have fallen in the most authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, however he did imprison political opponents, for example in Goli Otok prison camp, and killed thousands of political opponents.

Yes, he did imprison some fascist and stalinists for a few years, true. Does sending nazis to prison count as opressive? I don't know, but certainly not in my book.

I get my news sources from all over the world, from RussiaToday (anti-Western) to AlJazeera (anti-Gadaffi). I'm not "brainwashed". All my criticisms directed at Gadaffi are based on well reported factual events. The fact that you defend Gadaffi by refering to the economic situation in Libya shows how ridiculous your defence of him actually is. Again, I could go to Berlin in 1942 and ask what people thought about Hitler and they would almost all acclaim him as a great leader. Perhaps you should speak to the people imprisoned and tortured by Gadaffi's men.

Stop with the Hitler comparison.. It's dumb, and makes no sense. Yep, Hitler was good to Germans. And Gaddafi was good to Libyans. Does this mean that everyone who people like as a leader is like Hitler?

That's just makes no sense..

Let me put it like this: If Hitler wasn't a racist nationalist fuck, he would be a great leader. Gaddafi isn't a racist nationalist fuck. Therefore, he is mostly a good leader.

Hitler wasn't taken down by people who claimed to be German majority. He was taken down by non-Germans. While, although the Libyan majority supported Gaddafi, Gaddafi was taken down by people who claimed to be Libyan majority, but were imperalist mercenaries, funded, armed and helped by NATO.

See the problem now?

And what people imprisoned and tortured by him? Can you name a few, and the reasons why they were imprisoned?

Sure, Gaddafi wasn't an angel. He did have some bad sides. But the fact that he made Libya the most developed country in Africa remains. The fact that Libya was rated as the best country to live in Africa, Middle-East and South America also remains.

And the fact that he is still supported by majority of Libya and the fact that he died fighting for his people.

You said it yourself.

Just because the majority supports him, does not mean I should.

The whole point of this war is that Islamist fucktards and Imperialist asswipes claim that he is a ruthless dictator who every Libyan hates. And this clearly isn't the case, which makes this war totally invalid and stupid. Maybe you have a reason to think that people of Libya will live better when they are colonies of NATO and when they get Sharia law installed, but I certainly don't. And that man will always stay a hero for me, a hero who fought and died for his people, while being surrounded by a shitfull of lies and backstabbers.

If he was an "excessively wealthy authoritarian asshole" do you think he would stay and fight a war for his people, with very slim chances to win? Of course not. He was offered exile in Venezuela, Serbia, Croatia, and many more countries, where he could go and countinue being a "excessively wealthy asshole". But did he do that?

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 16:01

However, this is a man who did these things to his enemies, or allowed his inferiors to do so, on a massive scale. His execution was just.

This makes his lynching understandable, not justifiable.

Why is that people who support the most atrocious and/or authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao) are now complaining and whining about one man--a criminal tyrant--being "mistreated"?

The most atrocious and authoritarian regimes of the 20th century were Hitler's and Pol Pot's.

The mistreatment of one man counts because each of us is "one man".

Of course, there are people here decrying the murder of Gaddafy because they supported this commie-killer. But there are better grounds on which to criticise this lynching. The fact that his trial would have probably shown a lot about the underworkings of his regime, and about "Western" complicity with his crimes, for instance. Killing him this way only helps to exonerate his "friends" (Sarkozy, Berlusconi...) and his underlings who jumped ship when things went awry (not that I think this was the intention - people just make the stupidest things when infuriated).

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 16:09

Let me put it like this: If Hitler wasn't a racist nationalist fuck, he would be a great leader.

Hm, let's get this straight: so, as long as he didn't single out Jews, Roma, and other ethnic minorities, his brutal suppression of the Communist and Socialdemocrat parties, his unprovoked aggressions against Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, his elimination of trade unions, his use of semi-slave labour, etc., would be OK?

Luís Henrique

RadioRaheem84

23rd October 2011, 16:14

Tim Cornelis

23rd October 2011, 16:19

Yes, he did imprison some fascist and stalinists for a few years, true. Does sending nazis to prison count as opressive? I don't know, but certainly not in my book.

Ignore the rest though, it were not just nazis. And thousands were killed.

Stop with the Hitler comparison.. It's dumb.

No it's not, it exposes your ridiculously lame arguments.

Yep, Hitler was good to Germans. And Gaddafi was good to Libyans. Does this mean that everyone who people like as a leader is like Hitler?

No, it means that arguments like "the majority support Gaddafi, therefore his execution was unjust" are fallacies.

Let me put it like this: If Hitler wasn't a racist nationalist fuck, he would be a great leader.

Get the fuck out of here.

Gaddafi isn't a racist nationalist fuck. Therefore, he is mostly a good leader..

So, your formula for "being a good leader" = "not being racist or nationalist"? He was an authoritarian douchebag.

Hitler wasn't taken down by people who claimed to be German majority. He was taken down by non-Germans.

Oh my god! Imperialism!1211!11!1

While, although the Libyan majority supported Gaddafi, Gaddafi was taken down by people who claimed to be Libyan majority, but were imperalist mercenaries, funded, armed and helped by NATO.

Firstly, hat proof do you have the majority supported Gadaffi? Secondly, how is that relevant?

See the problem now?

No. "While, although the Yugoslav majority supported the fascists, they were taken down by people who claimed to be Yugoslav majority [partisans], but were imperialist mercenaries, funded, armed and helped by the Soviet Union." See how shallow your argument is?

And what people imprisoned and tortured by him? Can you name a few, and the reasons why they were imprisoned?

The fuck? I couldn't even name you one name of person tortured by, say, Pinochet. Doesn't mean he didn't tortured people. I saw this report though, where a former political prisoner who was freed went back to the, now abandoned, prison with film crew and showed the torture rooms. And there are numerous reports that reinforce the claim that Gadaffi tortured people, just one here (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/002/2011/en).

Sure, Gaddafi wasn't an angel. He did have some bad sides. But the fact that he made Libya the most developed country in Africa remains. The fact that Libya was rated as the best country to live in Africa, Middle-East and South America also remains.

Sounds like bourgeois logic to me. The working class of Libya made Libya the most developed nation of Africa, not Gadaffi. Gadaffi was an idle exploiter of the working class, basically a gigantic capitalist who appropriated surplus value through taxation.

And the fact that he is still supported by majority of Libya

Will you stop with these argumentum ad populum you keep spouting? And still not seen a source.

and the fact that he died fighting for his people.

he died fighting for his wealth and power. And guess who also "died fighting for his people", right: Adolf motherfucking Hitler. By referring to Hitler I am merely demonstrating how ridiculous your argument is, everything you say about Gadaffi could be said about Hitler in his defense.

The whole point of this war is that Islamist fucktards and Imperialist asswipes claim that he is a ruthless dictator who every Libyan hates. And this clearly isn't the case, which makes this war totally invalid and stupid. Maybe you have a reason to think that people of Libya will live better when they are colonies of NATO and when they get Sharia law installed, but I certainly don't. And that man will always stay a hero for me, a hero who fought and died for his people, while being surrounded by a shitfull of lies and backstabbers.

I will bold it since you missed it the previous three times I said it: just because I think the execution of Gadaffi was just, does not mean I think NATO intervention was just, nor does it mean I support the rebels, or think Libya will be economically better off.

If he was an "excessively wealthy authoritarian asshole" do you think he would stay and fight a war for his people, with very slim chances to win? Of course not. He was offered exile in Venezuela, Serbia, Croatia, and many more countries, where he could go and countinue being a "excessively wealthy asshole". But did he do that?

Hate to do this, but your logic screams for it.

If Hitler was an "excessively wealthy authoritarian asshole" do you think he would stay and fight a war for his people, with very slim chances to win? Of course not. He was offered exile in Argentine and many more countries, where he could go and continue being a "excessively wealthy asshole". But did he do that?

Yugo45

23rd October 2011, 19:30

Hm, let's get this straight: so, as long as he didn't single out Jews, Roma, and other ethnic minorities, his brutal suppression of the Communist and Socialdemocrat parties, his unprovoked aggressions against Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, his elimination of trade unions, his use of semi-slave labour, etc., would be OK?

Luís Henrique

Well, if we take out all the bad stuff he did, obviously, he would be good, lol. I mean, Goti's argument was that Gaddafi is same as Hitler because German people liked Hitler and Libyan people liked Gaddafi. So I was trying to show how silly that sounds :p

And Goti.. Seriously.. You call my arguments "lame", but you base all your arguments on how Person X had a same trait like Hitler.

Like:

Gaddafi was a vegetarian.. So was Hitler.. Gaddafi must be like Hitler!

So, your formula for "being a good leader" = "not being racist or nationalist"? He was an authoritarian douchebag.

That's obviously not what I said. The main reason why Hitler is a bad leader, is because he was a racist, nationalist douche. And Gaddafi wasn't. But you still constantly try to equalise Gaddafi and Hitler. Get it?

No, it means that arguments like "the majority support Gaddafi, therefore his execution was unjust" are fallacies.

Are you kidding me? Gaddafi was (or so we're told) overthrown because Libyans hate him and he treated them bad.. Or whatever. But if majority of the Libyans liked him as a leader, where the fuck is the reason behind his execution?

Firstly, hat proof do you have the majority supported Gadaffi? Secondly, how is that relevant?

My source is talking to few people who lived in Libya (but are not Libyans), and a articles or videos such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CH-crGG5AA

No. "While, although the Yugoslav majority supported the fascists, they were taken down by people who claimed to be Yugoslav majority [partisans], but were imperialist mercenaries, funded, armed and helped by the Soviet Union." See how shallow your argument is?

no lol. Read 2 quotes above. Also, what you said is silly. Yugoslav majority did not support the fascist (see: Yugoslav protests when Yugoslav goverment joined the Tripartite Pact), partisans weren't funded, armed or barely helped by the Soviets. So.. You know.. I still don't see your point.

Sounds like bourgeois logic to me. The working class of Libya made Libya the most developed nation of Africa, not Gadaffi. Gadaffi was an idle exploiter of the working class, basically a gigantic capitalist who appropriated surplus value through taxation.

No way.. Who gave freedom to the working class? Who lead the revolution that overthrew the bourgeoise and the monarchy? Who did the workers support?

It's like saying Lenin is an gigantic capitalist, and he didn't do shit in the Russian Revolution.

he died fighting for his wealth and power. And guess who also "died fighting for his people", right: Adolf motherfucking Hitler. By referring to Hitler I am merely demonstrating how ridiculous your argument is, everything you say about Gadaffi could be said about Hitler in his defense.

..

I will bold it since you missed it the previous three times I said it: just because I think the execution of Gadaffi was just, does not mean I think NATO intervention was just, nor does it mean I support the rebels, or think Libya will be economically better off.

I see.. With Gaddafi gone, most Libyans will starve to death. But it's alright, since Gaddafi was a bad man, according to your black-white views?

If Hitler was an "excessively wealthy authoritarian asshole" do you think he would stay and fight a war for his people, with very slim chances to win? Of course not. He was offered exile in Argentine and many more countries, where he could go and continue being a "excessively wealthy asshole". But did he do that?

:laugh:

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 20:21

Well, if we take out all the bad stuff he did, obviously, he would be good, lol. I mean, Goti's argument was that Gaddafi is same as Hitler because German people liked Hitler and Libyan people liked Gaddafi. So I was trying to show how silly that sounds :p

Nope. The argument is, "so what if people 'supported' Gaddafy, people 'supported' Hitler too". No way it is implied that they are similar because they were liked by people.

I am not a fan of comparisons with Hitler, and I certainly don't think Gaddafy was even remotely as bad as him, but the argument that Gaddafy must have been good because there were people who supported him is a bad one. Any government will have supporters, if for no other reason because they are government, and can use money and power to elicit support. If you don't like Hitler, Obama has supporters, as Franco, Tony Blair, Pétain, or the Argentine gorillas, etc.

And Gaddafy's level of suppport wasn't impressive at all; he had strongholds in Sirte and in a few neighbourhoods in Tripoli, and that is all; the rest of the country either strongly loathed him or was at the most indifferent. Few statesmen have so weak records of support - and most of those who do, resign to avoid being ousted.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 20:27

I see.. With Gaddafi gone, most Libyans will starve to death.

That's ridiculous. Gaddafy or not Gaddafy, the likelyhood of "most Libyans" starving to death is close to null, as long as they remain sitting upon vast oil reserves.

Luís Henrique

aristos

23rd October 2011, 20:31

Any government will have supporters, if for no other reason because they are government

But then again any government will have detractors, if for no other reason because they are government (unless we live in a utopia, but then we wouldn't have any government to begin with, would we).

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 20:31

The nationalist fuck part covers the rest of the territory not covered by racist.

It certainly doesn't cover the suppression of trade unions or of the working class parties.

I would've thrown in capitalist too, but that's just me.

Hitler was not a "capitalist"; he ruled over a capitalist State (and certainly had pro-capital policies), which is a different thing. Indeed, Gaddafy was much more of a capitalist than Hitler - and ruled over a capitalist State (and had pro-capital policies) as much as Hitler did.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd October 2011, 21:16

But then again any government will have detractors, if for no other reason because they are government.

Sure. There is a difference between governments that respect the rights of their detractors, and governments that jail, torture, or murder their detractors. Gaddafy's was of the latter kind.

Luís Henrique

Tim Cornelis

23rd October 2011, 21:26

Well, if we take out all the bad stuff he did, obviously, he would be good, lol. I mean, Goti's argument was that Gaddafi is same as Hitler because German people liked Hitler and Libyan people liked Gaddafi. So I was trying to show how silly that sounds :p

You're an idiot. You're an absolut idiot. My argument was not that Gadaffi is the same as Hitler. My argument was that your arguments could be applied to Hitler was well, evidencing how ridiculous and weak your arguments are. It's called an analogy, or reductio ad absurdum. In other words, the logic you use to defend Gadaffi could be used to defend Hitler. YOUR LOGIC could be used to DEFEND Hitler. Get it now?

And Goti.. Seriously.. You call my arguments "lame", but you base all your arguments on how Person X had a same trait like Hitler.

Like:

Gaddafi was a vegetarian.. So was Hitler.. Gaddafi must be like Hitler!

See above.

That's obviously not what I said. The main reason why Hitler is a bad leader, is because he was a racist, nationalist douche.

Gadaffi was a nationalist zealot, firstly. Secondly, why was he a great leader then?

And Gaddafi wasn't. But you still constantly try to equalise Gaddafi and Hitler. Get it?

NO I'M NOT. I am applying your line of arguments to the situation of Hitler, showing that your arguments could be used to defend Hitler. As such your arguments are weak to the bone. It's an analogy or reductio ad absurdum.

]QUOTE]Are you kidding me? Gaddafi was (or so we're told) overthrown because Libyans hate him and he treated them bad.. Or whatever. But if majority of the Libyans liked him as a leader, where the fuck is the reason behind his execution?[/QUOTE]

Holly shit. Firstly, still no source about the majority wanting him. Secondly, the opposition was oppressed, and the opposition rebelled against him, and the opposition executed him. Even if the majority supported him, a minority could feel the necessity to execute him because he oppressed them. And rightly so.

My source is talking to few people who lived in Libya (but are not Libyans), and a articles or videos such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CH-crGG5AA

That's not a source, that's anecdotal evidence. I could go to Benghazi and ask "does the majority support him" and maybe they'll say "no", I could go to Tripoli and as whether the majority supports him and they might say "yes". I want facts, statistics, polls, not some anecdotal meaningless evidence.

no lol. Read 2 quotes above. Also, what you said is silly. Yugoslav majority did not support the fascist (see: Yugoslav protests when Yugoslav goverment joined the Tripartite Pact), partisans weren't funded, armed or barely helped by the Soviets. So.. You know.. I still don't see your point.

It was a hypothetical situation based on historical events.

No way.. Who gave freedom to the working class? Who lead the revolution that overthrew the bourgeoise and the monarchy? Who did the workers support?

Holy shit! You actually think Muammar Gadaffi was a socialist?!? He did not overthrow the bourgeoisie, he did not abolish private property, he merely nationalized some industries, and did not even put these under workers control. He was the head of a capitalist state for crying out loud.

It's like saying Lenin is an gigantic capitalist, and he didn't do shit in the Russian Revolution.

No, because Lenin had a medium income throughout his life. Gadaffi accrued massive amounts of wealth (billions!). It's like saying that Kim Jung Il is a gigantic capitalist, and that is accurate.

..

I see.. With Gaddafi gone, most Libyans will starve to death. But it's alright, since Gaddafi was a bad man, according to your black-white views?

Black and motherfucking white you say? How is not support any side (of the multiple sides*) in this war black and motherfucking white? Gadaffi was a scumbag.

*NATO, secular liberals, Islamists, monarchists, Gadaffi loyalists

I'm done with you. You are defending a bourgeois authoritarian dickhead who oppressed his people, and you keep misrepresenting my arguments (no, I'm not equating Hitler and Gadaffi, your logic is, and repeating fallacies (argumendum ad populum, "majority supported him so he can't be that bad")

Yugo45

23rd October 2011, 21:29

:lol:

A Marxist Historian

24th October 2011, 03:50

Does it really have to be pointed out that Hitler was *not* "good for the Germans"?

Certainly nowadays Germans who think Hitler was good for the Germans are, fortunately, fairly infrequent.

Hitler was good for the German capitalist class. He was very, very bad for the German working class.

Qaddafi wasn't that great for the Libyan working class, but he was no worse than your average corrupt brutal Middle Eastern dictator.

Hitler was, well, a Nazi.

I agree with Goti123, Yugo had best clean up his act or leave.

-M.H.-

...
Get the fuck out of here.
...

Hiero

24th October 2011, 04:25

I know for at least 5 cases when people died from bullet fired in the air. It dosen't happen offten.

It does happen, after the Pakistan won the twenty twenty finals in 2009 a man died from a bullet failing from the sky. It is quite possible.

Whatabouttehmenz?

24th October 2011, 14:39

This is barbaric, even through i'm glad gaddafi has been overthrown there was no reason to kill him, and in my opinion killing someone should always be avoided if it can be avoided.

LuÃs Henrique

24th October 2011, 15:23

Does it really have to be pointed out that Hitler was *not* "good for the Germans"?

Sadly, it so seems.

Hitler was good for the German capitalist class. He was very, very bad for the German working class.

He was certainly "good" for the German bourgeoisie, when he suppressed the working class movement. Not so much, when he engaged in an unwinnable war. All in all, his dictatorship was a disaster, a tragedy for all involved (and yes, this includes himself and his cronies, who for the most part ended shot or hanged, or having to hide themselves the rest of their lives).

Qaddafi wasn't that great for the Libyan working class, but he was no worse than your average corrupt brutal Middle Eastern dictator.

Hitler was, well, a Nazi.

I would say that Gaddafy was worse than the average Middle Eastern dictator, but yes, he was the same sort of critter. Hitler belongs in a different category.

I agree with Goti123, Yugo had best clean up his act or leave.

Unhappily it seems that the memory of fascism is fading. I have read here in revleft very worrying signs of this, including a trend to mistify Strasser, Roehm, etc, as a "left wing", even a "socialist wing" of the Nazi Party. In part, of course, these things are the result of unrelenting right-wing propaganda equating Nazism with Communism. In part, however, it is a result of our own prevarication.

Luís Henrique

Yugo45

24th October 2011, 16:49

Well, well...

I still stand behind everything I said. I never said I fully supported Gaddafi and his politics, but I still support him in his anti-imperialist war, and still say that it's just bullshit propaganda you heard on your local news channel about him "slaughtering innocent civilians boo hoo."

Yesterday, I just wrote superficially about the subject because I didn't have much time to post my sources and write a good post. But, since many of you still beilive what you heard on TV, I have to write this post. It's probably gonna be a long one though ;D

Alright, where to start.. We all heard how unarmed, defenseless people, the Libyan majority, went out on the streets of Libya and rose against the ruthless Libyan dictator, tyrant, bad-guy, puppy killer, Muamer Gaddafi. They only have one goal! To give freedom to the people, and bring democracy to Libya! There's only one obstacle on the way to freedom.. Gaddafi's armed-to-the-teeth, children raping military - who every day bomb their own people, slaughter innocent civilians etc. Since poor rebels couldn't stand against such an army themselves, the international peace brigades of NATO had to show up to help them.

That's, in short, what you hear on TV every day. I understand how hearing the same thing every day might make you actually beilive it.

What the press doesn't tell you, though?

There is one hard fact: Libya, under Muamer Gaddafi (dictator madman), became the richest country in Africa, totally indenpendent from the west. Gaddafi wanted to introduce a new currency in the oil trade - Islamic Golden Dinar and interest-free loans (where IMF wouldn't have access). In Libya, it is forbidden to have interests on loans. The Islamic Dinar would be a stable currency, and the interest-free loans very stimulative. With the money Libya earned from the oil trade, Gaddafi bought gold. A lot of gold. It isn't really known how much that is, but it's speculated to be about 144 tones. That's worth over 6 billion dollars. And, unlike western colonies, Libya keeps all of that gold in their own, Libyan, safes. Not in Switzerland.

I hope some of you already know who got pissed off by this.

With Islamic Gold Dinar, everyone who wanted to buy African oil would need to first buy this money. And what happens then? Something that pissess of the banking elite. So, now Gaddafi automatically made two enemies. First, USA, who got pissed off since they couldn't buy African oil anymore with their imaginary money, then the banking elite who saw Gaddafi as their big concurent, especially after they lost China to Gaddafi.

Moving on..

Gaddafi basically united all Libyan tribes, especially two Libyan etchnicities which required Libya to always in history be devided into two parts. Gaddafi made a very strong, united country. He made the oil deals with foreign companies so most of the oil money stayed in Libya, in favour of the people. He made the biggest oil company 100% state ownership. He made the oil production only 1 dollar per barrel, while everywhere else it even went well above 100 per barrel.

Since Gaddafi was "bad for business" to the west, Gaddafi was warned to get out of "business" and get rid of the idea of the Islamic Golden Dinar, since developed Africa can't be any good to USA, or anyone else.

Gaddafi had many projects to develop Libya and Africa, most of which you never heard about on western TV. Such as:

Great manmade river project: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River)

In 1953, while searching for oil, Libyans found laaarge quantities of underground water. The underground pools of water were on almost two thirds of the Libyan territory. Same water pools are also found in Chad, Sudan, Niger and Egypt. So, all you need to do is dig wells and transport the water where it's needed.

Since 90% of Libya is located in a desert, there is very little farm land available (1% of total territory), it seriously needed this water. But, this water was located in the desert part of the land, while 95% of the population lived in the coast areas of Libya. So, Gaddafi started this project to transport all this water to the north of the country. To transport all of this water, it was required to make the biggest water pipeline on earth. The project was called Great manmade river project.

The project was imagined to be made in four phases, during 26 years. Two are already completed, third one was in progress when shit started. Libya was supposed to get 160000 hecatars of farm land with this water. 70% of the water is supposed to go to agriculture, while the rest will go to the cities. None of it would go to industry because the water is of too good quality.

Here are a few pictures of this project:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3451/cilindritransportniz1.jpg
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4293/nasasnimakrezervoara.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1191/nasasnimakrezervoara444.jpg

It's a well known thing in Libya, but somehow, the western media completely forgot to mention it :o

Libya also planned to introduce all of this technology to other countries with these water pools. The goal was to, with time, totally satisfy the need for farmland and to revolutionize Libyan agriculture, so Libya may enter European market. This would lead to the progress of the whole African continent. Naturally, "some people" didn't want this ti happen for obvious reasons. Who has monopoly over water? Who wouldn't profit from high quality fruits and vegetables suddenly pouring in from Libya?

Another very important thing is: IMF and the World Bank was totally ignored. All of the financing was done by the interest-free loans gave by the goverment. Did this piss off the banking elite? You bet your ass it did.

So, Gaddafi totally ignored the IMF and the World Bank, and Libya wanted to supply whole Europe with high-grade fruits and vegetables.

Still not convinced?

Well, then answer me why was this pipeline one of the main targets of NATO bombing, leaving most of Libya out of water?

I realize this is leading to anti-imperialist rambling, so let's get to the point and talk about the "rebels":

Like I said, the moment when the west severly got pissed off started, and so did the war on Libya. Then came in the rebels from the so called "National Transition Council" (which the media constantly displays as freedom fighting organization) who wanted to (well, who did) take over from Gaddafi and make a new Central bank in Begazi, controlled by London and Rothschilds, and new oil companies which are completely privitised. Also, let's not forget that the French companies (Veolia, Suez Ondeo and Saur), who hold 40% of world's water trade, will be allowed to get all the property over the pipelines mentioned above.

Let's not forget NATO which in the first few days of the "revolution" bombed oil pipelines, water pipelines, and gas pipelines, which brought great wounds to the Libyan infrastructure. Libya is famous for it's advanced building industry, and NATO had a goal to completely destroy this industry, and already bombed schools, hospitals, hotels, apartments, factories, (500 000 of which are in construction). 3,5 million foreign workers lost their jobs in Libya because of this. I personally met and talked to a few from Bosnia, and these are information first hand which I got from them. Do they really have a reason to lie? All of them? I hope I don't need to tell you about NATO anymore, so I'm gonna try and focus on the "rebels"

The press constantly tells you about Gaddafi's troops massacaring and raping people, but from the data collected by indenpendent press, nothing was found to support this theory. Another interesting fact is that there wasn't formed even one international commission for the truth, which is supposed to be first thing done by UN.

So who are these rebels? Mostly young kids who got brainwashed and promised to great riches and freedom if they finish their goals. Among them, many members of radical islamist organizations, and there are witnesses which claim that their religious leaders called them on a jihad against everyone who doesn't support them. Among captured rebels there were even famous US mercs - Blackwaters and Dynocorp. With rebels are also little kids which were raised to be warriors. Like in Yemen, where kidnaps of kids and training them for these purposes is a big problem. Many pictures confirm this.

People from Misorati witnessed that, during the occupation of that city by rebels, 200 people of the city were slaughered infront of the other citizens, thrown into bags then into sea. It was used as a warning to every citizens, as what with happen if they don't obey their new "masters". There are videos of this event.

Many people also witness that women constantly get raped by rebels.

Libya was a very advanced, almost socialist, society, without crime and violence. There is also a fact that 2000 tribes of Libya still gather in the Youth national forum of libyan tribes and give support to the defense of Libya. Gaddafi had the support of all these tribes and this was so far the biggest problem to NATO.

Let me be clear here. Like I said thousand times before, I don't support all the politics of Gaddafi. But I do see him as a great anti-imperialist leader, and who was so far the best African and Arab leader. And, I am 100 percent sure that everyone in Libya will be worse off without Gaddafi. Getting rid of Gaddafi was a step back for Libya, and the whole African continent, not the other way around. No, the people of Libya didn't overthrow Gaddafi, NATO did. I just hope more of you realise this, and stop beiliving what you hear on TV. This was, in short, my view on the "Libyan revolution".

Is it wrong? I don't know. You be the judge of that, but I hope it's not, since it took me like forever to write this shit. :D

Sourches:
http://www.ivonazivkovic.net/LIBIJA-MONETARTNI%20RAT.html
http://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/category/interventi-umanitari/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CH-crGG5AA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLBWg1mOllk!

Yugo45

24th October 2011, 16:50

Unhappily it seems that the memory of fascism is fading. I have read here in revleft very worrying signs of this, including a trend to mistify Strasser, Roehm, etc, as a "left wing", even a "socialist wing" of the Nazi Party. In part, of course, these things are the result of unrelenting right-wing propaganda equating Nazism with Communism. In part, however, it is a result of our own prevarication.

Please, stop misinterpreting what I said. I said that if Hitler wasn't a bad leader, he would be a good leader. It makes sense if you think about it :rolleyes:

aristos

24th October 2011, 16:52

I would say that Gaddafy was worse than the average Middle Eastern dictator,

Worse than the Saudi King? Worse than Mubarak? Worse than the King of Morocco? Or that guy in Yemen?

danyboy27

24th October 2011, 17:55

the respect for various international laws regarding war have most of the time been selectively ignored.

i mean, this is what you get when a fucking war happen, and this is why war is so fucking scary and should always be the last measure of resolving a political issue between 2 sides.

A Marxist Historian

27th October 2011, 08:58

Please, stop misinterpreting what I said. I said that if Hitler wasn't a bad leader, he would be a good leader. It makes sense if you think about it :rolleyes:

Well, it's nice to know that you aren't a closet Hitler fan. Your post had some of us wondering.

Still, you need to clean up your act and watch what you post. You may not have intended to come off the way you did, but the fact is you did.

-M.H.-

Tim Cornelis

27th October 2011, 09:03

Worse than the Saudi King? Worse than Mubarak? Worse than the King of Morocco? Or that guy in Yemen?

Yes, except for the King of Saudi Arabia who is equally worse.

Please, stop misinterpreting what I said. I said that if Hitler wasn't a bad leader, he would be a good leader. It makes sense if you think about it :rolleyes:

You said Hitler was a good leader, except for the racism and nationalism.

Yugo45

27th October 2011, 13:20

You said Hitler was a good leader, except for the racism and nationalism.

And you said that Gaddafi is same as Hitler because majority of Libyans support him.

See what I did there :o?

No, I said "If Hitler wasn't a racist nationalist fuck, he would be a good leader." Do you see the difference? I hope you do, but if you don't, you should take some time to study English a bit more.