Log in

View Full Version : Is Libya Socialist?


Chicom
28th January 2006, 05:36
Just wondering because of the name "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
redstar2000
28th January 2006, 08:04
No.

In fact, the Libyan government is selling off oil concessions to European oil companies even as we speak.

"Islamic socialism" is an oxymoron.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The Grey Blur
28th January 2006, 11:40
Well, they gave the IRA guns. So they're not totally evil.
Eoin Dubh
28th January 2006, 15:56
Moammar Khadafi also recognized a delegation of Mohawk first nations people who visited his country as freedom fighters. The Libyans accepted the Iroquois Nation passports the Mohawks used instead of Canadian ones, and he gave them some medals and a bit of cash too.
Luís Henrique
28th January 2006, 17:12
No, it is a capitalist society where people are exploited by national and foreign capitalists. And it is a repressive dictatorship.

Luís Henrique
Atlas Swallowed
28th January 2006, 17:19
But he is sure one snazzy dresser.
Abood
29th January 2006, 13:46
"Islamic socialism" is an oxymoron.
Please explain
redstar2000
29th January 2006, 15:40
Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 29 2006, 09:05 AM

"Islamic socialism" is an oxymoron.
Please explain
Islam is a medieval superstition. Socialism is a 19th century idea, incorporating a rational and scientific approach to building a civilized society.

Trying to combine the two is just idiocy.

Like "feminist honor killings". :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
ReD_ReBeL
29th January 2006, 16:56
Well, they gave the IRA guns. So they're not totally evil.

Yea , Blowing up innocent people isn't all that bad is it?
People's Coalition
29th January 2006, 21:58
It used to be Socialist, but it has been leaning towards the right ever since that deal with the US a few years ago
Seven Stars
30th January 2006, 01:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:15 PM

Well, they gave the IRA guns. So they're not totally evil.

Yea , Blowing up innocent people isn't all that bad is it?
It was never IRA policy to target innocent civilians and warnings were always given for bombs.

I see so called leftys condemn the IRA again and again on this board. You have the stupid idea that the revolution will be the romantic glorious thing. Welcome to the real world, innocent people die in war, it is an unfortunate side effect.
ReD_ReBeL
30th January 2006, 01:57
Welcome to the real world, innocent people die in war, it is an unfortunate side effect.

This could be used to justify Al-Queda or anyother religious fundamentalist terrorist group. Al-Queda protects there fellow muslims, IRA protects Catholics.
Seven Stars
30th January 2006, 04:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:16 AM

Welcome to the real world, innocent people die in war, it is an unfortunate side effect.

This could be used to justify Al-Queda or anyother religious fundamentalist terrorist group. Al-Queda protects there fellow muslims, IRA protects Catholics.
uhh..no. As I said it is NOT IRA policy to target civilians. This is not true of Al-Queda. And the IRA fight for the freedom of the Irish people not for catholics.
ReD_ReBeL
30th January 2006, 04:29
uhh..no. As I said it is NOT IRA policy to target civilians. This is not true of Al-Queda. And the IRA fight for the freedom of the Irish people not for catholics.

ok it may not be there policy, but why attack civillian targets when they are full? why not at night when there closed? if they take the chance to target it when civillians use it(even if givin warning) just to cause terror, then they are still risking killing the civillians.
And i didn't say if the IRA fighting for the freedom of the Catholics or not, i just stated that they protect catholics
The Grey Blur
30th January 2006, 14:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:15 PM
Yea , Blowing up innocent people isn't all that bad is it?
Don't be too hard on the British Army there mate, they had a hard job, accidents occur, war situations, etc, dirty paddies deserved it, etc...
Andy Bowden
30th January 2006, 19:06
What about the Kingsmill massacre? That was an explicitly sectarian crime, there were no warnings or military targets.

Such actions are an insult to the non-sectarian ideology of Republican Socialism, which aims to unite dissenter, Catholic and Protestant.
The Grey Blur
30th January 2006, 20:11
What about the Kingsmill massacre? That was an explicitly sectarian crime, there were no warnings or military targets.
That was just a case of the 'auld South Armagh lads gettin a bit out of control


Such actions are an insult to the non-sectarian ideology of Republican Socialism, which aims to unite dissenter, Catholic and Protestant.
That South Armagh IRA groupng were well known for their occasional disobeyence of the IRA Army Council, stimulated usually by the murder of random, innocent Catholics by Loyalist paramlitaries.

Yes, the Kingsmill killings were sectarian, yes it was a horrible act but I can understand why the IRA in South Armagh might have felt it was necessary

Please let's not make this another IRA thread, I was lightheartedly joking with my first post for chrissake
Andy Bowden
30th January 2006, 22:08
I agree, we shouldn't make this another IRA thread, there are enough of them. But I dont see any justification for it - just cos the UDA/UVF carries out sectarian attacks means the Republicans should.

And if they were out of control these guys should have been disciplined for this crime by the Army Council IMO.

Basically I support a United Ireland but am critical of the provos tactics. But lets stick to Libya for now. :P