Muammar al Qadhafi

[ReD_ReBeL]

give me your opinions of this man plz, i do not know much about him so i wanna know your opinions lol

[Ownthink]

"Qaddafi based his new regime on a blend of Arab nationalism, aspects of the welfare state and what Qaddafi termed "direct, popular democracy." He called this system "Islamic socialism" and while he permitted private control over small companies, the government controlled the larger ones. Welfare, liberation and education were emphasized. He also imposed a system of conservative morals, outlawing alcohol and gambling. To reinforce the ideals of this socialist state, Qaddafi outlined his political philosophy in his Green Book, published in 1976. In practice, however, Libya's political system is thought to be somewhat less idealistic and from time to time Qaddafi has responded to domestic and external opposition with violence. His revolutionary committees called for the assassination of Libyan dissidents living abroad in February 1980, with Libyan hit squads sent abroad to murder them."

He's a crazy moralist asshole with extremely small blends of Socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Qa...and_Pan_Arabism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Qaddafi#Islamic_Socialism_and_Pan_Arabism)

[Amusing Scrotum]

This is the part I don't like about Qaddafi -


For most of the 1990s, Libya endured economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as a result of Qaddafi's refusal to allow the extradition to the United States or Britain of two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Not only that, but it is often rumoured that Qaddafi himself authorised the bombings.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea thts a mystery, another thing i read about is tht he got his men to assasinate dissidents abroad

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:47 AM
yea thts a mystery, another thing i read about is tht he got his men to assasinate dissidents abroad

I wouldn't be especially surprised if that was true. Nearly every state has at one point or another assassinated dissidents living abroad. The most famous probably being Trotsky.

[ReD_ReBeL]

man i really dont believe in assasinating dissidents its planely uncalled for and irrevelent, if sum1 does not agree with ur government let it be, Cause if you truely are a good leader the people will be behind you 110% and the need for assasination will not be needed

[Cyber Communist]

Al Qadhafi is another dictator who uses a hybrid of populist policies to try and give his regime popular support and legitimacy.

Whilst the unification of the Middle East and the Arab nations into a regional federation is a development that socialists/communists/anarchist should support, as it is a step to move away from small nation states into a pan-national federation that is a step towards the communist goal of a global federation, his Arab unity, like many othert Arab leaders, is a fake unity.

Al Qadhafi sought to unify Libya with Tunisia, which at the time (mid 1970s) was under the dictatorship of Bourgiba, a right-wing US backed regime. Then Al Qadhafi sought unity with the reactionary leaders/dictators of Assad is Syria and Sadat in Egypt.

You cannot just unite nations without popular support, two dictators getting to meet each other and proclaiming unity is not the genuine unity of peoples.

Only through a collective struggle by the working class of the Middle East (by Arabs, Assyrians, Turks, Kurds Hebrews/Jews and Berbers and Bediouns) can there be a real and lasting unity of the people. That is the only real way the Middle East will be able to unify itself against further imperialist exploitation.

Further more, Al Qadhafi is not a real believer in any form of genuine democracy, whether it be direct decmoracy or popular participation.

His regime is like any other dictatorship, reppresive and corrupt. The Al Qadhafi regime has a very small base of support, that is in the main found inside the Libyan military and Al Qadhafi's own tribe. Like other Arab regimes, tribal politics still dominate, remeber the tribal base of the Iraqi Ba'a'thist regime (al Tikriti clan) and the Syrian Ba'athist regime (Alawite clan) and Libya is no exception.

Part of the reason that the Iraqi resistance is so divided and in conflict with each other as well as with the forces with imperialism, is the tribal differences. It is not just a case of Kurd, Sunni and Shia, but many divisions within the three groups as well.

I for one hope that the tribal base of Arab politics will soon go, as that is needed to get the unity of the Arab working class and thus build a real and effective pan-national communist movement.

Back to Al Qadhafi, he has over the last five years pledged support for the U$A in it's imperialist 'war on terrorism', unsing it as an excuse to justify Libya's horrific abuse of the freedoms of the Libyan people.

Al Qadhafi has also announced that Libya will privatise it's state owned industires and sell them off to multi-national corporations (BP, Shell and others to name have expressed their desire to exploit Libya). So much for the poor excuse of Al Qadhafi's so-called 'socialism'.

Al Qadhafi thinks of nothing by meeting and become friends with imperialist war criminal leaders like Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi. Al Qadhafi supports the now clearly insane/senile dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe.

All in all, Al Qadhafi's regime, like all other regimes in the Middle East, is ripe for a workers revolution, to depose it and build a real anti-imperialist, democratic, Middle Eastern federation.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:04 PM
man i really dont believe in assasinating dissidents its planely uncalled for and irrevelent, if sum1 does not agree with ur government let it be, Cause if you truely are a good leader the people will be behind you 110% and the need for assasination will not be needed
Bahahahahah! That's fucking hysterical! :lol:

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea cyber communist tht is true, OWNTHINK what are you laughing at you got a fetish for murder of sumthing?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:30 PM
yea cyber communist tht is true, OWNTHINK what are you laughing at you got a fetish for murder of sumthing?
First off, quit acting like an idiotic child.

No, I haven't a fetish for murder. I do, however, enjoy killing Fascists.

As you so eloquently put it:

man i really dont believe in assasinating dissidents its planely uncalled for and irrevelent, if sum1 does not agree with ur government let it be, Cause if you truely are a good leader the people will be behind you 110% and the need for assasination will not be needed
Well, then good luck when the Fascists and Capitalists conspire to overthrow your Communist society. Killing is needed, and people like Fascists and Capitalists deserve death.

And second, "the people" will never be behind anybody "110%". Maybe the majoity of the people, but not all the people, seeing as how some people are the enemy -- Fascists, Capitalists, etc

Killings and assasinations are needed and just, depending upon who the target is.

[ReD_ReBeL]

look you dont know wht you r going on about , your broadning the scale of wht i actualy said, i sed no need to assasinate DISSIDENTS! i never sed anything about if your opposition is violent towards you, wait lets get this right so..you are saying im acting like a child because i dont agree with killing ppl who disagree with my government?

[Guerrilla22]

The only good part about Qadhafi was that he gave financial and military support to the IRA. Otherwise he is a fuckwit.

[ReD_ReBeL]

has the IRA not caused amounts of injuries and death to innocent British citizens on there bombing campaigns tho?

[Guerrilla22]

Yes, their attacks were necessary acts in a liberation movement. The IRA was at war, there tends to be casaulties in wars.

[ReD_ReBeL]

necesarry to bomb shops where normal working class men and woman work and probably children in there ?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:18 AM
Yes, their attacks were necessary acts in a liberation movement. The IRA was at war, there tends to be casaulties in wars.

You what?

Civilian targets are never legitimate targets.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 3 2005, 07:01 PM
The most famous probably being Trotsky.
You should really crack open a history book sometime, Trotsky was killed by Ramón Mercader not by the Soviet Union.

As for Qadhafi, he would be a better leader if he actually practiced what he preached and took religion out of his political beliefs. But if he did all that at best he would be a social democrat.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Diego Armando+Dec 4 2005, 02:49 AM--> (Diego Armando @ Dec 4 2005, 02:49 AM)
Armchair [email protected] 3 2005, 07:01 PM
The most famous probably being Trotsky.
You should really crack open a history book sometime, Trotsky was killed by Ramón Mercader not by the Soviet Union. [/b]

I thought he was killed by people payed by or linked to, the Soviet Union? .....my apologies if I am wrong.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 3 2005, 08:51 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 3 2005, 08:51 PM)
Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 4 2005, 02:49 AM

Armchair [email protected] 3 2005, 07:01 PM
The most famous probably being Trotsky.
You should really crack open a history book sometime, Trotsky was killed by Ramón Mercader not by the Soviet Union.

I thought he was killed by people payed by or linked to, the Soviet Union? .....my apologies if I am wrong. [/b]
Yeah, he was trained by Moscow to fight in the Spanish Civil War. But if I was trained by a hypothetical socialist state to fight in a war that the proletariat lost in and I killed a prominent socialist a year later, did I or the hypothetical socialist state kill the socialist leader?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:18 AM
Yes, their attacks were necessary acts in a liberation movement. The IRA was at war, there tends to be casaulties in wars.
Liberation movement? You call that liberation. I feverently oppose British occupation, but also the IRA. Are you supporting them in anyway? That is not acceptable.

[Cyber Communist]

Liberation movement? You call that liberation. I feverently oppose British occupation, but also the IRA. Are you supporting them in anyway? That is not acceptable.

Before I really respond to that, can I ask you if you are a pacifist?

I oppose the killing of innocent civilians but I see nothing wrong in killing class enemies like those members of the British military forces, government officials etc...

Im more supportive however, of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), which did both the Irish and British working class a big favour when they blew up and killed Airy Neave (Conservative MP) in Westminster in 1979.

You can in no way oppose that action!

[refuse_resist]

I posted this article awhile back on the last Muammar al-Qaddafi thread...

Qaddafi vs. New World Order
by Husayn Al-Kurdi
Toward Freedom magazine, February 1997

How can a country of less than five million people, located on Africa's northern shores and harboring much of the inhospitable Sahara desert, become the object of an aggressive US-CIA campaign of destabilization, subversion, and attack for almost three decades? And why is its revolutionary leader, Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi, so relentlessly vilified and scorned in the media and by policy makers in Washington?
Let's begin with the basics. Libya is seven times as large as Britain but sparsely populated. Over half of its citizens are under 15 years old, and most of the young firmly support the revolution and its charismatic leader. They and others have enjoyed the benefits of Libya's vast reserves of top-grade oil. However, the use of these oil-generated revenues has angered the corporate-dominated New World Order and motivated much of US hostility.
From 1911 to 1932, the country underwent a harrowing and unsuccessful war of national liberation against its Italian colonizers in which over a million Libyans lost their lives. After World War Il, the country was held "in trusteeship" by massive US and British military presence. Wheehus Air Base, near the ancient capital of Tripoli, became one of the largest US military installations in the world. The Semlssi royal family was kept in power, its readiness to serve imperial interests guaranteeing its position. But the Senussis lost whatever prestige they gained from their support of the struggle against the occupation by cynically presiding over the destitution of their people, half of whom lived in makeshift housing. The discovery of oil and development of that lucrative industry in the l960s failed to change the situation.
The coup staged by Qaddafi and his comrades on September 1, 1969, may have preempted a similar CIA-approved initiative. Old King Idris and his entourage were sent to Saudi Arabia, and a new era began. Qaddafi espoused a new "third universal" theory for oppressed people's liberation, enunciating three interconnected concepts of freedom: emancipation from want, ignorance, and injustice; Libya's liberation from imperialists and neo-colonialism; and emancipation of the entire Arab world.
Qaddafi is clearly an internationalist and universalist. He calls for a "New World Order" in which "the house is for its occupant, the land is for everyone, and workers are partners and not wage earners." This contrasts sharply with the NWO ushered in by George Bush as he presided over Iraq's destruction in 1991.
Qaddafi has supported liberation movements worldwide without regard to national, religious, racial, or even ideological criteria. These include the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, AIM and other militant Indian movements, the IRA, the Sandinistas in their revolutionary phase, and the Palestinian struggle. He is the only world leader to proclaim his support for Kurdistan self-determination, a decision which has assured his position as preferred villain for the US government and its allies. Only Fidel Castro has survived as many CIA-related murder plots. In the most well known example, Qaddafi's home was bombed by US planes in an April 1986 raid on Tripoli and Benghazi which left hundreds dead or wounded. He lost his infant step daughter.
Libya has also committed the unforgivable sin of avoiding the IMF/World Bank debt trap, making it the only Maghribi (Arab North African) country without huge obligations. In fact, it's created a socialist system that actually works. Once largely illiterate, Libyans now get free education through college and beyond. Against traditionalist opposition, Qaddafi has promoted equality for women, and rejected patriarchal and oppressive notions espoused by some Islamists. Internally, most of his opposition is generated by reactionary clerics, elements openly serving the West, and large landowners whose holdings were expropriated. Outsiders like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have long targeted him for overthrow.
Today, virtually every Libyan lives in her own home and the average person makes more in a week than she did in a year before 1960. No other African country has improved the well-being of its people more.
Nevertheless, Qaddafi and Libya are perennial targets of abuse in the discourse of world domination, blamed for many "terrorist" acts around the world. Most of the accusations have proved false, but only a careful observer could glean this fact, going beyond the propaganda transmitted by most media outlets. Many Leftists have joined the Right in pillorying Libya's leader, some even developing labels such as ''Neo-Islamic Bonapartist adventurer." Activists such as Robert Blake and David Brower express horror at the prospect of Libyans entering the US with nukes in their backpacks. On December 15, 1996, 60 Minutes ran a segment on the most recent, sustained action undertaken against Libya-UN sanctions and an embargo that took effect in 1992. The sole focus was Libya's status as "suspect" in the Lockerbie case. Embittered relatives of crash victims repeated the usual descriptions of Qaddafi as the "mad outlaw terrorist." The 60 Minutes punch line was simple: "They can't get away with killing Americans."
In the past, the US has falsely accused Libya of a variety of "terrorist" acts that were later revealed to be the work of other states' agents or associates. The new accusation, certain to horrify a largely unsuspecting US population, was that Libya blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988. The evidence? A micro chip which US investigators claimed could only have come from Libya.
Using this pretext, the US imposed a total international ban on air travel to and from the country, until and unless Libya turns over two "suspects"-both Libyan Airline workers- for trial. The would-be defendants have agreed to be tried in a neutral third country, understandably skeptical about US or British justice. Meanwhile, the embargo has produced a dramatic increase in both road and airline accidents within the country. At least 10,000 lives have been cut short due to the sanctions, and Libya has lost over $1 billion in agricultural and livestock production.
All this is par for the course. The current "New World Order" must suppress those who get the radical notion that a country s resources belong to its own people. Whether that idea emerges in Chiapas or Kurdistan, Palestine or East Timor, it must be thwarted at any cost. Thus, US officials have announced their readiness to use nuclear weapons on selected Libyan targets. Rumors about chemical weapons development could provide the pretext for a devastating attack, nuclear or not. In short, the formula used for Iraq's destruction is being repeated. Disinformation, defamation, demonization, and dehumanization are all tools in the campaign to destroy Libya and its revolution. The discourse of domination continues. Yet Libya, along with Cuba, 190 wars of liberation worldwide, and countless movements that confront the "New World Order," continue to answer with their own thrusts toward freedom.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_S...addafi_NWO.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Qaddafi_NWO.html)

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Dec 4 2005, 04:10 AM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Dec 4 2005, 04:10 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 02:18 AM
Yes, their attacks were necessary acts in a liberation movement. The IRA was at war, there tends to be casaulties in wars.
Liberation movement? You call that liberation. I feverently oppose British occupation, but also the IRA. Are you supporting them in anyway? That is not acceptable. [/b]
Why is supporting the IRA not acceptable? Because they aren't communist? I suppose the PLO and African National Congress were terrorist too then?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 4 2005, 02:38 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 4 2005, 02:38 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 02:18 AM
Yes, their attacks were necessary acts in a liberation movement. The IRA was at war, there tends to be casaulties in wars.

You what?

Civilian targets are never legitimate targets. [/b]
You do what you have to in order to gain freedom. Again: PLO, ANC. ETA ect.

[Cyber Communist]

refuse_resist:

The artical you posted boils down to highlighting the fact that Al Qadhafi is not as bad as the other dictators in the Middle East.

Even people like me who would love to see the Middle Eastern dictatorships overthrown and workers republics replace them, can agree to the fact that in comparison to other regimes, Al Qadhafi is not as bad as they are.

Al Qadhafi has allowed women to hold a social equality that is more far reaching than many regimes, such as Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

Al Qadhafi has not used chemical weapons against people whom are in opposition to the regime, like that of Iraq in 1988.

Al Qadhafi has developed Libya, economically speaking, that would put some Arab regimes like Algeria, Egypt and Yemen to shame.

Literacy levels in Libya are way above the average level of the Middle Eastern nations.

However, none of this makes Libya a workers republic or a socialist state in any way whatsoever. Just that Libya is less backward and more economically developed than other nations in the Middle East and that Libya has moved out of fuedal despotism (as it was under King Idriss) and has become a modern capitalist state, abliet with an authoritarian government (like say South Korea or Thailand in the 1980s).

I am one of those communists that believe that the working class makes a socialist/communist revolution, not peasants. Thus I do not see how fuedal and rural
based societies could ever develop towards communism without first going through the capitalist stage of development.

Al Qadhafi at best represented in the 1970s a bourgeois revolutionary who destroyed the fuedal system and modernised Libya to industrial capitalism.

This is a move that is needed before socialism/communism and cannot be bypassed with Maoist shortcuts of trying to build a workers state with a peasant base.

However, Libya is now ripe for a workers revolution and should the working class rise up, I would on principle support them over the Al Qadhafi regime and it's populism dressed up as socialism.

Also, are you aware that Libya is dismantling it's state owned industries as Al Qadhafi is now selling them to the global market and to foreign companies.

Like with all dictatorships, the people have no say over this and Al Qadhafi's word is the law.

Not to mention Al Qadhafi now trying to sign up for the U$ 'war on terrorism', your artical tries to paint Libya as a victim of this so-called 'war on terrorism', it is not. Libya is playing a part in the 'war on terrorism'.

I always try to use Marxism as the guide for analysis, as all actions and developments in this world are based upon the interests of the antagonistic classes.

Al Qadhafi was anti-imperialist when developing Libyan capitalism in it's infancy, away from fuedalism. This was to protect Libyan capitalism from the competition from foreign capitalist interests. However, now Libyan capitalism has developed itself enough, it now feels the time is right to open it's economy to the global market, it just wanted to do this from a position of strength.

Just like Maoist China did, the CCP developed China away from fuedalism and thus opposed other imperialistic threats from the USSR and the U$A to it's process of capitalist development and when it finally changed from a fuedal nation to a capitalist one, China has now joined up with the global cabal of imperialism that is led by the advanced capitalist countries.

Thus Libya, with it's own working class, like all the other capitalist countries, awaits a workers revolution, as capitalism is it's own gravedigger.

However, I would never support any imperialist threats or attacks on Libya, just like I oppose such imperialist threats on North Korea, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Sudan.

I don't support the regimes of the above listed countires politically, yet I support any non-imperialist country over the imperialist forces.

I would support Libya's military effort over the U$A and it's imperialist allies without giving support to the political system in place in Libya.

[jackdaw1924]

So in other words: "uuuuuhhhh even though im a pseudo-anarcho communist, i am terrified by the tyranny of OH GOD FORBID Al-Qaddafi; but, like any other dumbass who doesn't know any better. I want to nit-pick the good parts of Libya, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT Al-Qaddafi muwaa waaa!!"

[Cyber Communist]

So in other words: "uuuuuhhhh even though im a pseudo-anarcho communist, i am terrified by the tyranny of OH GOD FORBID Al-Qaddafi; but, like any other dumbass who doesn't know any better. I want to nit-pick the good parts of Libya, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT Al-Qaddafi muwaa waaa!!"

What???

Is that a response to me?

[jackdaw1924]

yes

[Cyber Communist]

So in other words: "uuuuuhhhh even though im a pseudo-anarcho communist, i am terrified by the tyranny of OH GOD FORBID Al-Qaddafi; but, like any other dumbass who doesn't know any better. I want to nit-pick the good parts of Libya, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT Al-Qaddafi muwaa waaa!!"

Well if Im a dumbass, what the fuck are you???

Im not afriad of Al Qadhafi, why on earth should I be, dickhead.

Like any other braindead idiot, you have no clue as to what Marxism is about.

Communism cannot be built out of fuedal societies, only capitalist.

I pointed out that Al Qadhafi transformed Liyba from a fuedal society to a capitalist one, thus making it possible for a workers revolution to occur in Libya, which is progressive by the standards of any communist.

I however don't have any delusional ideas that Al Qadhafi in any way is a socialist or even wishes for a socialist society.

Prehaps you should make the effort to read other members posts before you make posts that only show up your immaturity and lack of any ability to write coherantly.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just incase anyone was interested.. here's the book in which Qadahfi laid out his ideas on how society should look.

http://www.qadhafi.org/the_green_book.html

Talks alot about direct democracy, "no leaders", etc.

[Andy Bowden]

Gaddaffis Libya has definitely made some progress in areas of health, education literacy and womens rights - however the recent privatisations and Gaddaffis recent call for Bush to visit Libya show he is not a Socialist.


The charge that Libya bombed Pan Am 103 is false however - it is far more likely to have been the PFLP-GC, who have been let off for the sake of Syria and Irans neutrality during the Gulf War.

Paul Foot has done a lot of good stuff on how Pan Am 103 had drugs on board and was used by the CIA, Id advise members to check him out.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Diego Armando+--> ( Diego Armando)Yeah, he was trained by Moscow to fight in the Spanish Civil War. But if I was trained by a hypothetical socialist state to fight in a war that the proletariat lost in and I killed a prominent socialist a year later, did I or the hypothetical socialist state kill the socialist leader?[/b]

That's quite a riddle.

What did the Soviet archives say about it when they were opened up?


Originally posted by Cyber [email protected]
I oppose the killing of innocent civilians but I see nothing wrong in killing class enemies like those members of the British military forces, government officials etc...

Im more supportive however, of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), which did both the Irish and British working class a big favour when they blew up and killed Airy Neave (Conservative MP) in Westminster in 1979.

You can in no way oppose that action!

There is nothing wrong with blowing up the Conservative party conference. There is something wrong with bombing shopping centres full of civilians.

See the difference?


Guerrilla22
Why is supporting the IRA not acceptable? Because they aren't communist? I suppose the PLO and African National Congress were terrorist too then?

There is something wrong if you are condoning the murder of civilians.

[Cyber Communist]

There is nothing wrong with blowing up the Conservative party conference. There is something wrong with bombing shopping centres full of civilians.

See the difference?

I never made a post saying I did.

I always make clear that innocent civilians are not to be attacked.

If an armed group that does not attack civilians intentionally carries out an action that leads to the accidental death of a civilian, then they must publish a communique to make an apology and do something to recitfy the mistake, like making their planning for attacks more advanced and maybe some sort of compensation to the victims relatives.

But, civilians do die in the crossfire, that will happen regardless.

Just genuine revolutionaries make the effort not to attack them.

However, Im not a pacifist or a reformist. I do support armed actions against individuals and insititutions/organisations that are part of or supportive of the capitalist state.

The INLA is different ot the IRA.

The INLA is an armed group that is secular (not taking side in the catholic/protestant sectarianism-but opposing the imperialist occupation of Ireland and all racist oppression in Ireland) and the INLA supports a Socialist Revolution to unify both the North and South of Ireland under a workers republic.

The IRA is not as socialist, but rather catholic and nationalist. The IRA only ever on paper made it's opposition to the clericalist regimes of the South Irish Republic, but never made an effort to highlight the Irish government in Dublin is also an enemy of the Irish working class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I never made a post saying I did.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. I was just pointing it out.

As you have stated, there is a difference between an action that produces civilian casualties as an unfortunate consequence and an action thats main aim is to produce civilian casualties.


The INLA is different ot the IRA.

I know, I get newsletters off them.

[jackdaw1924]

Originally posted by Cyber [email protected] 4 2005, 07:35 AM

So in other words: "uuuuuhhhh even though im a pseudo-anarcho communist, i am terrified by the tyranny of OH GOD FORBID Al-Qaddafi; but, like any other dumbass who doesn't know any better. I want to nit-pick the good parts of Libya, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT Al-Qaddafi muwaa waaa!!"

Well if Im a dumbass, what the fuck are you???

Im not afriad of Al Qadhafi, why on earth should I be, dickhead.

Like any other braindead idiot, you have no clue as to what Marxism is about.

Communism cannot be built out of fuedal societies, only capitalist.

I pointed out that Al Qadhafi transformed Liyba from a fuedal society to a capitalist one, thus making it possible for a workers revolution to occur in Libya, which is progressive by the standards of any communist.

I however don't have any delusional ideas that Al Qadhafi in any way is a socialist or even wishes for a socialist society.

Prehaps you should make the effort to read other members posts before you make posts that only show up your immaturity and lack of any ability to write coherantly.
hey "cyber" commie I don't see you out there in fronts of Libya trying to motivate the masses to take control. Plus, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to shut up the U.S. Don't you have a clue that U.S has plans in invading Libya for years now. It was only until Al-Qaddafhi made some concessions to get the U.S out of their asses.

You trying to promote "communist" revolution in a lenient "Islamic" state is the equivalent with Trotsky trying to incite a Civil War in Russia during WWII.


Go back playing your cyber games :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

hey "cyber" commie I don't see you out there in fronts of Libya trying to motivate the masses to take control.

This doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaddafhi isn't a revolutionary in the proletarian sense.


Plus, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to shut up the U.S.

What do you mean, "shut up the US"?


Don't you have a clue that U.S has plans in invading Libya for years now.

While I wouldn't put it past the US, I would like to see some proof.


You trying to promote "communist" revolution in a lenient "Islamic" state is the equivalent with Trotsky trying to incite a Civil War in Russia during WWII.

Actually, no it isn't. There's a big difference between a revolution and a civil war.


Go back playing your cyber games :lol:

Go back to jacking off into your sheets, immature brat.

[jackdaw1924]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:04 PM

hey "cyber" commie I don't see you out there in fronts of Libya trying to motivate the masses to take control.

This doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaddafhi isn't a revolutionary in the proletarian sense.


Plus, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to shut up the U.S.

What do you mean, "shut up the US"?


Don't you have a clue that U.S has plans in invading Libya for years now.

While I wouldn't put it past the US, I would like to see some proof.


You trying to promote "communist" revolution in a lenient "Islamic" state is the equivalent with Trotsky trying to incite a Civil War in Russia during WWII.

Actually, no it isn't. There's a big difference between a revolution and a civil war.


Go back playing your cyber games :lol:

Go back to jacking off into your sheets, immature brat.
1. Neither are you guys. But heck, I favor Qaddafhi over any of you pre-pubescent anarcho-commies.

2. In other words, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to get the U.S off his back.

3. One of my friend's pal is a delta force and he has told my friend that he has seen blueprints in how to tackle Libya, Iran, Venezuela, as well as the DPRK. So go figure.

4. Yea a directionless libyan revolution where marajuana and drugs get legalized. Hurrayyy for the proletarian cause! Oh and che guevara shirts are mandatory! :ph34r:

5. :-D

[Cyber Communist]

I don't see you out there in fronts of Libya trying to motivate the masses to take control.

That is becuase the only the Libyan working class can liberate themselves, not outside communists or any other force. But that fact would not register with a stalinist dickhead like yourself, who prefers to give his backing to a one man dictatorship.


Plus, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to shut up the U.S.

No he isn't. When has he shut up the U$???

The U$ is now the sole imperialist power and more or less does what it wants to, the U$ is not going to change it's ways for some small time dictatorship.

Did Libya stop the invasion by the U$ of Iraq, no.

Did Libya stop the invasion by the U$ of Afghanistan, no.

Did Libya put a stop to any 'free trade' pact that the U$ forces on the third world, no.


Don't you have a clue that U.S has plans in invading Libya for years now.

They may of did in the past, although I would like to see you post some evidence of that.

But not any more, given that Al Qadhafi has sold out to U$ interests and now is a keen supporter of global imperialism and it's latest military project, the 'war on terrorism'.


It was only until Al-Qaddafhi made some concessions to get the U.S out of their asses.

In other words he has sold out!

And this contradicts your other sentence about him making the U$ 'shut up', looks like the reverse here, U$ put pressure on Al Qadhafi and he now toes the line of the White House, wow, great he really is a 'Great Revolutionary Leader' or whatever other pompus title that sell out gives himself.


You trying to promote "communist" revolution in a lenient "Islamic" state is the equivalent with Trotsky trying to incite a Civil War in Russia during WWII.

Im not promoting anything, dickhead.

I said I would support, should one occur, a workers revolution in Libya. For fucks sake learn to read and don't make up things that I never said.

And your comparison to Trotsky is not irrelevant in that Libya is not in the midst of being invaded by a large fascist superpower.

But you stalninists love to hype the threat against dictatorships as it gives you reason to not support any workers struggles, supporting the dictatorship under the guise of anti-imperialism and a progressive cause.


Go back playing your cyber games

I don't play games, unlike you I do not see the workers struggle as some sort of game or entertainment.

I am active outside of this forum, but of course that fact would not register with you as you just like to make cheap, baseless insults to compensate for a complete lack of any ability to put forward a coherant point of view.

BTW, besides supporting dictators on the internet and having the nerve to side with a dictatorship over the workers struggle, yet still call yourself a 'communist', what the fuck do you do?

Im guessing nothing!

Now if you cannot make proper posts, instead of cheap insults, fuck off and don't bother posting.

[Cyber Communist]

Neither are you guys.

Yeah right..... support a workers revolution and we are not communist, support a non-socialist dictator and WTF does that make you? :rolleyes:

You cannot even repsond to any of the points put to you, showing your complete stupidy.


But heck, I favor Qaddafhi over any of you pre-pubescent anarcho-commies.

Im 22 and work full time.

Do you work?

Are you over 20?

Something tells me your lack of intelligence means you will answer no to both questions.

[jackdaw1924]

Originally posted by Cyber [email protected] 4 2005, 08:08 PM

I don't see you out there in fronts of Libya trying to motivate the masses to take control.

That is becuase the only the Libyan working class can liberate themselves, not outside communists or any other force. But that fact would not register with a stalinist dickhead like yourself, who prefers to give his backing to a one man dictatorship.


Plus, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to shut up the U.S.

No he isn't. When has he shut up the U$???

The U$ is now the sole imperialist power and more or less does what it wants to, the U$ is not going to change it's ways for some small time dictatorship.

Did Libya stop the invasion by the U$ of Iraq, no.

Did Libya stop the invasion by the U$ of Afghanistan, no.

Did Libya put a stop to any 'free trade' pact that the U$ forces on the third world, no.


Don't you have a clue that U.S has plans in invading Libya for years now.

They may of did in the past, although I would like to see you post some evidence of that.

But not any more, given that Al Qadhafi has sold out to U$ interests and now is a keen supporter of global imperialism and it's latest military project, the 'war on terrorism'.


It was only until Al-Qaddafhi made some concessions to get the U.S out of their asses.

In other words he has sold out!

And this contradicts your other sentence about him making the U$ 'shut up', looks like the reverse here, U$ put pressure on Al Qadhafi and he now toes the line of the White House, wow, great he really is a 'Great Revolutionary Leader' or whatever other pompus title that sell out gives himself.


You trying to promote "communist" revolution in a lenient "Islamic" state is the equivalent with Trotsky trying to incite a Civil War in Russia during WWII.

Im not promoting anything, dickhead.

I said I would support, should one occur, a workers revolution in Libya. For fucks sake learn to read and don't make up things that I never said.

And your comparison to Trotsky is not irrelevant in that Libya is not in the midst of being invaded by a large fascist superpower.

But you stalninists love to hype the threat against dictatorships as it gives you reason to not support any workers struggles, supporting the dictatorship under the guise of anti-imperialism and a progressive cause.


Go back playing your cyber games

I don't play games, unlike you I do not see the workers struggle as some sort of game or entertainment.

I am active outside of this forum, but of course that fact would not register with you as you just like to make cheap, baseless insults to compensate for a complete lack of any ability to put forward a coherant point of view.

BTW, besides supporting dictators on the internet and having the nerve to side with a dictatorship over the workers struggle, yet still call yourself a 'communist', what the fuck do you do?

Im guessing nothing!

Now if you cannot make proper posts, instead of cheap insults, fuck off and don't bother posting.

Yeah right..... support a workers revolution and we are not communist, support a non-socialist dictator and WTF does that make you? rolleyes.gif

You cannot even repsond to any of the points put to you, showing your complete stupidy.


Im 22 and work full time.

Do you work?

Are you over 20?

Something tells me your lack of intelligence means you will answer no to both questions.
1. hahahaha, that's good. Have you seen any 'worker's' struggle in Libya? That's because Al-Qaddafhi is synonmous with the spirit of Libya.

2. So? What the fuck do you expect Libya to do? First off if it would have done something against the Iraq War and the Afghanistan invasion then they would have been on the same boat. Don't you remember 2003? when the U.S was *****in about Libya having "WMD"? They would have gotten invaded and their infrastructure would have been destroyed. In global politics there has to be concessions.

3. It has not 'sold out'; these are just concessions that Libya had to make in the face of the Empire. It's difficult to be indepedent in a CAPITALIST superstructure. Just because it is dealing with the U.S does not mean it has 'sold out'

4. At least he has done far more for the Libyan people than your silly ass could ever wish for!

5. That fascist superpower is the U.S, and what would Libya do to face off the U.S? Your views are highly unrealistic.

6. ahahahaha do I even care who you are?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1. Neither are you guys. But heck, I favor Qaddafhi over any of you pre-pubescent anarcho-commies.


Prove that I'm not revolutionary you lying sack of shit.


2. In other words, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to get the U.S off his back.

Bullshit. The US could bomb Libya tomorrow if they wanted to.


3. One of my friend's pal is a delta force and he has told my friend that he has seen blueprints in how to tackle Libya, Iran, Venezuela, as well as the DPRK. So go figure.

Anecdotes aren't evidence, you fool. Try again!


4. Yea a directionless libyan revolution where marajuana and drugs get legalized. Hurrayyy for the proletarian cause! Oh and che guevara shirts are mandatory! ph34r.gif


What the fuck has this got to do with anything I have said?

[Guerrilla22]

There is something wrong if you are condoning the murder of civilians.

Opressed peoples tend to take extreme measures, you wouldn't understand, having never been in their situation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:39 PM

There is something wrong if you are condoning the murder of civilians.

Opressed peoples tend to take extreme measures, you wouldn't understand, having never been in their situation.

Well I do live in the English colony Wales.

However my understanding or empathy for the Irish cause is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you condone barbaric acts against civilians. Do you?

[jackdaw1924]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:37 PM

1. Neither are you guys. But heck, I favor Qaddafhi over any of you pre-pubescent anarcho-commies.


Prove that I'm not revolutionary you lying sack of shit.


2. In other words, Al-Qaddafhi is doing a good job trying to get the U.S off his back.

Bullshit. The US could bomb Libya tomorrow if they wanted to.


3. One of my friend's pal is a delta force and he has told my friend that he has seen blueprints in how to tackle Libya, Iran, Venezuela, as well as the DPRK. So go figure.

Anecdotes aren't evidence, you fool. Try again!


4. Yea a directionless libyan revolution where marajuana and drugs get legalized. Hurrayyy for the proletarian cause! Oh and che guevara shirts are mandatory! ph34r.gif


What the fuck has this got to do with anything I have said?
1. Yes, being a "mod" of a forum filled with a bunch of anarcho-commies is surely revolutionary :lol:

2. They would have to put money on the PR propaganda machine to suddenly bomb the shit out of Libya.

3. Well it's pretty common sense that Libya was perceived as a 'terrorist' nation. So go figure you dumbass.

4. No, I'm saying that because it's the vibe I get whenever I visit this forum. It's really funny :lol:

[Xiao Banfa]

Libya has just capitulated to the US. And they used to support Abu Nidal.
Banning alcohol really is the last straw, though. What about trades hall piss-ups?

[Xiao Banfa]

Noxion and Jackdaw1924 should calm down.

[The Grey Blur]

The only good thing about Ghadaffi is he gave the IRA weapons: Tiocfaidh Ár Lá!

Just after reading the thread. Any long-time members will know how long I have defended the IRA from critiscism and have heard most my arguments before, thus these are just old answers/quotes copied & pasted.

BTW - If anything refers to Sinn Féin just change it to 'IRA' in your head.

The ending of partition - the objective of Nationalists as well as Irish Republicans since 1921.

We can and do blame partition for many of the ills aflicting our country; sectarianism, infrastucture, equality, economy, all these have been abused by Partition and its continued existence.

It's also nothing to do with "hating the Union" (whatever that is) - this isn't pure Nationalism, it's a viable Socialist objective.

In conclusion, if the Republican left has problems, so has the left with the Republicans; all revolutionary groups in Britain and Ireland should support the anti-Partition movement - Sinn Féin, despite all their imperfections and the heavy historical impedimenta they carry into political battle, are the vanguard of the anti-Imperialist struggle in Ireland - this partly because of the failures of the Left and their "Unconditional but critical support" for the anti-Partition movement. There is no such thing as an anti-imperialist that does not support Irish Republicans movement, and no such thing as a socialist who is not anti-imperialist.

On the subject of the IRA - Yes, they did have the support of the majority of Catholic/Nationalist communities who were fed up with the harrassments of the British forces and murder of innocents. Armed revolution was the only method of resistance open to them after peaceful measures were opressed

There were errors of judgement and simple mistakes on the part of the IRA which led to such tragedies as the Claughdy bombing, the Shankill bomb and a few others and which inevitably lost them a lot of support but the British Government's insane, dangerous and oppressive policies in the Six Counties only reinstilled the Republican belief that the armed struggle was just and necessary.

And of course Ireland isn't socialist - it's divided! There is no class-consciousness because of partition and only with its removal can socialism grow in Ireland - fact

There has always been a tradition of armed resistance to the British military and political occupation of Ireland. This tradition generally only found effective expression when after a period of non-armed agitation, large sections of the Irish people, faced with the British government's denial of the legitimate demand for Irish independence, exercised the right to use armed struggle.

This was the case with the organisation from which modern Irish republicans trace their origins - the United Irishmen of the 1790s. Inspired by the example of the American War of Independence and by the democratic ideals of the French Revolution, the United Irishmen sought to unite the people of Ireland in a common effort to achieve equality and freedom. Choosing initially non-violent means to win their aims, the United Irishmen quickly met with a repressive response from the British government. It was only then that they exercised their right as Irish people to defend their liberty by the use of arms. It was a pattern that was to be repeated several times in the next century and a half."

The Provisional IRA (the group that orchestrated the armed campaign from the 70's to the 90's) were not a socialist group in the stricter sense of the word but they were more concerned with the immediate opression of the Catholic population and thus their defence; not any distinct political ideology. Their long-term goal has always been a democratic socialist united Ireland.

The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and Irish National Liberation Army [INLA] were founded on December 10, 1974. Most original members were drawn from Official Sinn Fein and the Official IRA (the organizations from which the Provisional Irish Republican Movement had split five years earlier). This was a much more socialist and class-based attempt at defying the British occupation but cooperated greatly with the PIRA and the two groups are generally regarded as the two major defenders of the Catholic population during the British forces occupation.

I don't want to actually become dragged down into yet aother IRA/anti-IRA arguement but I will make this comment on attacking targets such as shops: these were seen as legitimate targets as they were part of the economy of Northern Ireland - a state the IRA wanted to destroy (also major warnings were given, only in rare cases was there any danger at all to civilians).

A point I forgot to make is how Western, Capitalist countries have accepted the ANC, the Cuban Revolution and exalt (or at least recognize their movemnts as legitimate) leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara, etc but the IRA, the FARC etc are routinely condemned. Is this a case of "history is written by the winners", the reformism of succesful revolutions, romantiscism or sheer propaganda influencing people's views?

Since Óglach basically did all the arguing for me I just wish to concur with this point; although I am proud of my heritage and culture it is not to the detriment of my socialist leanings, in other words - I'm an Irish Republican

So you think that British colonialism and the plantation as well as 72 years of living in a biased, sectarian hellhole had nothing to do with the enmity between Catholics and Protestants? If so you are deluded.

Well I'll break down your mistakes then I'll correct them, shall I?

"The activities of the IRA" - Defense of under-siege Catholic areas and retaliation against the imperialist British forces.

"are just the actions of radical catholic terrorists" - Wait no seriously? Seriously? You're trying to brush off the IRA as just the actions of radical catholic terrorists? Well these 'radical catholic terrorists' just nearly managed to change the direction of the 20 century - bomb in the Bristol hotel gos off a minute earlier = no more Maggie Thatcher.

You consider yourself a communist and you cannot even recognize a revolution of the opressed?

First off, the IRA were not a sectarian organization; not only were the majority of IRA people anti-Catholic Church they never once targeted protestants, they targeted the British forces and Loyalist organizations, regardless off religion. (the first British trooper killed on the streets of Belfast was a catholic)

Secondly, you consider them terrorists? Tell me, do you consider the Palestinian freedom fighters, the ANC or the Zapatistas as terrorists as well? Do you consider the ANC radical black terrorists?

Last point - why are we even arguing over this? The IRA are defunct; they have laid down their weapons and are prepared to assist Sinn Féin through peaceful means to achieve a United (non-sectarian) Democratic Socialist Ireland.

And so on and so forth; blah, blah, blah!

[Hiero]

You will probally find that Qadhafi and Chavez are quite similar. They both approach the problems in their countries in similar ways by creating many social services by nationalising oil. The political differences are only trival, such as the use of Islam law or what not.

These methods are reasonable good for the people, as long as you can always have revenue raised through oil. If this stops the governments quickly become unpopular and right wing claims of liberalisation will seem like a good idea to the masses.

So while it last it is reasonable good. Though it is no solution to the class war, which both try to aviod. With the proletariat wining the class war it brings socialism and with socialism it brings the freeing from the dependance on one source of income that feeds the masses needs.

Both can no escape natural law and will face it's contradiction unless they take the neccasary steps.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 4 2005, 05:35 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 4 2005, 05:35 AM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 08:30 PM
yea cyber communist tht is true, OWNTHINK what are you laughing at you got a fetish for murder of sumthing?
First off, quit acting like an idiotic child.

No, I haven't a fetish for murder. I do, however, enjoy killing Fascists.

As you so eloquently put it:

man i really dont believe in assasinating dissidents its planely uncalled for and irrevelent, if sum1 does not agree with ur government let it be, Cause if you truely are a good leader the people will be behind you 110% and the need for assasination will not be needed
Well, then good luck when the Fascists and Capitalists conspire to overthrow your Communist society. Killing is needed, and people like Fascists and Capitalists deserve death.

And second, "the people" will never be behind anybody "110%". Maybe the majoity of the people, but not all the people, seeing as how some people are the enemy -- Fascists, Capitalists, etc

Killings and assasinations are needed and just, depending upon who the target is. [/b]
Nobody deserves death.

What is wrong with you?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What the hell is wrong with YOU, leftistmarleyist? The blanket statement "nobody deserves death" is flat out wrong. The type of people worthy of death off the top of my head; neo-nazis, fascists, those who order genocide.

This is a forum for revolutionaries, not weak-kneed liberals.

:angry:

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 4 2005, 09:55 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 4 2005, 09:55 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 09:39 PM

There is something wrong if you are condoning the murder of civilians.

Opressed peoples tend to take extreme measures, you wouldn't understand, having never been in their situation.

Well I do live in the English colony Wales.

However my understanding or empathy for the Irish cause is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you condone barbaric acts against civilians. Do you? [/b]

I'd hardly put your situation in Wales into the same category as that of the Irish, Palestinians, or black South Africans.

Also If these citizens support a government that opresses others are they really innocent? I don't condone killing civillians, however if a movement feels it has no other recourse, then it is a necessary act of liberation.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'd hardly put your situation in Wales into the same category as that of the Irish, Palestinians, or black South Africans.

I don't think anyone could possibly compare the Irish situation of the last 50 years with Palestine or South Africa. Well you could compare it, but not with a serious face.

Anyway, Wales will be in a far worse state when it "gains" independence. We have no coal left, all our industry has gone and there are only two functioning cities.

The Irish and Scottish, actually got a "better deal."


Also If these citizens support a government that opresses others are they really innocent? I don't condone killing civillians, however if a movement feels it has no other recourse, then it is a necessary act of liberation.

Over the years, the British public has been in favour of an independent Ireland. The only time they changed their opinion is when they were being blown up.

And even then, they still got back to supporting Irish independence within a few months.