All the liberals have gone fucking quiet on this thread the fucking useful idiots.
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
I want my thread title changed from this pro-USA one that the U75 authorities imposed.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
How about Ghadaffi heroically defies west - again - and looks like he might win with a bit of luck ?
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
I think the fact he's receiving credible and active support from socialists in Latin America seems to have wrongfooted a few .That and he's winning again without tanks or heavy stuff and the opposition is increasingly looking like a decidedly rum bunch of coves wholly reliant on massive support from even rummer coves . And distinctly a minority in Libya .
That and the fact theyve probably gone to bed .
Meanwhile even better news is Ghadaffis chaps have been gleefully sporting these bad boys , the brand spanking new Igla 24 surface to air missile making any helicopter or gunship supported western invasion - where they have to come down much lower than the 20,000 feet theyre currently skulking at , a decidedly more fraught affair .
Theey look decidedly undaunted .
they can be shoulder launched too and are even more deadly than the much vaunted stinger . Western aircraft cant jam them . The western powers have been cracking up since they found out Libya has them and are desperately trying to trace who brokered them .
One can only surmise but Venezuela has been buying them in by the shitload wary of a possible US invasion there under similar circumstances - to support their favoured opposition movement in Latin America . One wonders have Latin American socialists been supplying more than diplomatic and moral support to the Libyan government ?
Anyways what the liberals should be much more worried about than the fate of a gang of bandits in Benghazi is the possibility some of their Al Qaeda supported rebels have managed to lay their hands on any when they looted the arms dumps . Because if they did getting on a european passenger jetover the next few years could well be a tricky business . They could well come to form a different view of their current plucky rebel heroes if history repeats itself and the hand that fed the Islamists gets bitten again..
Spot on chief
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
venceremos !!
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
The Libyan army having now largely dispensed with its tanks due to the air support are now moving about in the same technicals -the toyota pick ups the rebels have been using . Making the 2 sides almost indistinguishable from the air . Cue some more fun and games now .
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
Darnah where loads of the rebels are from is a place where 100's of people went to fight in Al queda camps. Now there back they call themselves the Shabaab, which is what the islamists call themselves in Somalia. Remember when the west was a big fan of Bin Laden? Maybe a case of supporting the wrong side?
Yep. Pretty much only TruXtwat left now. Not that this little fiasco will stop them greeting the bombing of Iran with cries of "Ahmedinajad is a horrid nutjob psycho monster..."
Iran is firmly against Muammar, they may even offer military support to the USA. Lol.
I thought your post was very intelligent, it made me think. What worries me is how little I know about what is really happening in the Middle East. the war with Libya is causing me a great deal of stress and anxiety. The idea once more our country will get mired in a conflict, that distracts us from business at home and might cause huge unforeseen circumstances.
The problem with war, any war. Is that you can't complain if your enemy does you violence back. this current conflict is like the permanent war that was always going on on the distant frontier in the book 1984.
Will it just be a matter of days or a couple of weeks until the 'men with beards' are defeated by other men with beards? With the recent turnaround of pick-ups speeding eastward every day, and those other men with beards in hot pursuit, but with better guns on the back of their own pick-ups, it'd take months to train the 'beards' into something resembling a proper army? Time they don't have?
It was a reference to ernestolynch. I've seen some beards on the telly, though, from both sides.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
That is such a fashion blooper. Beards and AK47s is sooooo 2001
dylans
overlord of all acorns
venceremos !!
It's very revealing that you wish to celebrate a murdering cunt without a word of criticism yet you are quick to point to every reactionary action of the rebels. I have listed many of the reactionary activities of both your hero (and of the rebels) but you have singularly ignored every one. So time to answer a few of the charges I made (and as you know, I oppose Western intervention but I do so without falling into your disgusting uncritical support for the blood drenched Gaddafi)
Why did Gaddafi deport thousands of Palestinians in 1995 and leave them stranded in the desert?
Why did Gaddafi abuse the thousands of migrant workers and pander to racism and encourage racist pogroms? Why does his security services arrest, torture, beat, rape, and murder African asylum seekers who were deported back to Libya?
Why did your hero publicly execute his opponents and televise the executions?
Why does your hero imprison artists and novelists for no other crime than criticising the regime?
Why did your hero massacre 1200 prisoners in Abu Salim prison in 1996
Why did your hero invade Chad at the cost of 10.000 lives
Why did your hero support Idi Amin, Charles Taylor, Jean-Bedel Bokassa,Foday Sankoh and why did he arm and train and finance the RUF butchers of Sierra Leone?
Why are you such a fucking idiot?
Sooooo 1981.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yes Gaddafi is one of them
Yes and Tony Blair was running about arming Gaddafi not so long ago
And when the people of Tunisia and Egypt moved to overthrow their dictators Gaddafi condemned the uprisings.
And any pretence at "anti imperialism" by Gaddafi is simply in order to justify his own fake "revolutionary credentials". Gaddafi's rhetoric is utterly fake. What is anti imperialist about punishing Palestinians because of Oslo? What is anti imperialist about supporting Idi Amin, Charles Taylor or the RUF? What is anti imperialist about arresting beating and killing asylum seekers?
Let's keep a sense of proportion here. The West is now fighting in four Muslim countries (including Pakistan), and is openly theatening a fifth (Iran). Everywhere they go they leave chaos and permanent warfare. They have destroyed entire societies which, while certainly oppressive, were at least functioning. It was at least possible for most people to lead decent lives there. That is possible no longer, and it will not be possible for at least a generation. In an entire region of the world.
Whatever you think of his mental health etc., the fact is that Gadaffi never possessed the capacity to unleash the kind of mayhem that the West has done. Under these circumstances, your criticisms of Gadaffi, while accurate enough, really do seem to be missing the point.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Phil you know my position on Western intervention. I have spelt it out in more detail than probably anyone on these boards. I oppose it but I also oppose CRs absurd and offensive binary logic that assumes opposition to imperialism must equal support for Gaddafi. As someone who opposes both Gaddafi and Western intervention I find myself walking a tightrope. On the one hand I have posted many many posts condemning the western attempt at regime change and I have been called a supporter of Gaddafi for my trouble. On the other hand I refuse to remain quiet in the face of people like CRs slavish uncritical cheerleading for Gaddafii and I am called a pro imperialist for my trouble. Both accusations are examples of binary with us or against us logic and I reject both.
The fact is CR has consistantly refused to answer a single criticism of Gaddafi's appalling human rights record and that is simply not acceptable. Supporters of Gaddafi are a stain on legitimate anti imperialist arguments and give ammunition to those who claim those who oppose intervention must be supporters of this vicious reactionary regime. The same smear that was used against the anti war movement around Iraq when we were told that opposing the invasion meant supporting Saddam Hussein. That was false then and it is false now. True anti imperialists should condemn western intervention without falling for the lie of supporting Gaddafi. I want to see Gaddafi face a firing squad, he deserves to be overthrown. But it must be at the hands of the Libyan people not the West
Fair enough. I broadly agree with you about Gadaffi. But when war breaks out, I usually tend to focus my criticisms on the aggressor.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think you are sophisticated enough to avoid such binaries. 90% of my posts have been critical of Western intervention. But in the face of apologists like Casually red, we can't remain silent about Gaddafi. Central to my argument is that Western intervention makes any attempt at creating genuine representative government impossible. Western intervention is wrong not because it will lead to the fall of Gaddafi but because it means the death of the Libyan revolution and the beginning of Western interference in the entire regional revolutionary process.
teqniq
DisMembered
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
But tis true that lots of the Shabaab went to Al Quaeda camps in Afganistan. My point is its not gonna be a liberal democracy if they take charge. Half the country hates them.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Define "lots"
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
100's from Darnah, one the largest contingents from anywhere.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
