Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
and clapping in a sportman like fashion when the other team score . While pointing out what a difficult job referees have .
are you supporting you're argument with gif's of Brittney Spears blacked up now, good grief.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
bollocks it is
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I can remember saying that the rebels needed to be more careful with that arms dump at Benghazi which was later torched with loss of life.
It turns out (or I see today on the news) that amongst other things, it contained artilliary, something that they could well do with today on the front line.
I told you so!
It turns out (or I see today on the news) that amongst other things, it contained artilliary, something that they could well do with today on the front line.
I told you so!
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Post 630 I quote and link to an article disputing that the regime was using mercenaries and discussed the long history of racism in Libya. Racism encouraged and pandered to by Gaddafi, including state encouraged pogroms and mass deportations of African workers and violent physical and sexual abuse of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers by the state security services. Something you have singularly refused to acknowledge.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...on-Gaddafi?p=11537248&viewfull=1#post11537248
This is the sort of thing I mean. First of all, you don't know if this is true. Secondly, even if it is true, it is beside the point of the current situation. The point of the current situation is the West smashing up yet another part of the Islamic world in order to make Israel and the oil supply secure. To bang on about wire coat hangers in this situation is to miss the point, and to see things from the perspective framed for you by Western propaganda.
I wouldn't even bother calling most people on this, but your obvious intelligence and knowledge of the middle east mean that you shouldn't be fooled as most people are.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
No it is exactly the point. The claim is that the Gaddafi regime is some sort of anti imperialist quasi socialist heroic entity by someone who is uncritically supporting that regime to the point of celebrating the regime attacking its own people. In that context it is perfectly reasonable, In fact it is a duty, of anyone who supports freedom in the Arab world to point to the fallacy of that view and to ask what is revolutionary or progressive about a regime whose sons swan around the world in $4000 a night hotels beating up the staff, (and hiding behind diplomatic immunity) who own private zoos and keep pet tigers (just as Ben Ali did) beat their wives, squander millions on pop stars. Rape and murder asylum seekers, deport Palestinians and publicly execute their opponents and imprison novelists and poets.
I agree there are other issues and I have argued non stop against those who support western intervention but that does not mean, in the face of idiot supporters of Gaddafi, that we should remain silent in the face of their uncritical cheerleading. Supporters of Gaddafi are a stain on the anti imperialist movement and I am ashamed to stand on the same side as them on any issue. I would like nothing better than to focus solely and only on the issue of Western imperial meddling in Libya and I will do so just as soon as useful idiots like Casually red stop apologising for a vile and reactionary regime
And you are different, how?
The title "Red" should have told you that that was not so.
But all the rest are not on your's.
Just as well, ernie, as you will never achieve such a status.
If it's true, it's not propaganda.
Well try a historical analogy. When King Leopold invaded the Congo, it was true that the Congo was ruled by brutally oppressive tyrants who liked to eat their people. But an observer who responded to Leopold's annexation by banging on and on about how disgusting and cannibalistic the tribal leaders were would have been missing the point wouldn't he?
start a new thread or something, you loons are derailing it. Last original post mentioning Libya was 6 posts back...
How about this: instead of telling the rest of us what to write, why don't you say something about Libya?
If you can.
Over to you...
Fuck off you arrogant twat. Read my post again. Start another thread if you feel the need to get personal.
Say something about Libya? No mate, after you, I absolutely insist.
You're the one who got personal. No-one else.
Now if you have something constructive to say about Libya, go ahead and say it. If not, leave the conversation to those of us who do have something to say..
Yours was the last post in the thread, going OT about the Congo. I suggested you start a new thread ("you loons" I said - meaning all you who are bickering and going off topic) - that's perfectly reasonable, I think. It's an important subject, as I'm sure you agree, so 'you' (plural) should refrain from having a go at each other (when there's no mention of Libya) and stick to the subject in hand.
I suggested you start a different thread, that's fair enough isn't it? And what did you mean by saying "if you can"?
Fuck this, I'm not contributing another off topic post to this thread. If you want to start on me, then bring it on, but not here.
I can't be bothered with petty bitching with you. My work here is done.
Thanks to you, QED. Good work, I didn't even have to try, you did all the hard graft yourself! Don't forget to facepalm yourself before you go to bed. I'm off to watch AJE for a bit.
I suggested you start a different thread, that's fair enough isn't it? And what did you mean by saying "if you can"?
Fuck this, I'm not contributing another off topic post to this thread. If you want to start on me, then bring it on, but not here.
I can't be bothered with petty bitching with you. My work here is done.
Thanks to you, QED. Good work, I didn't even have to try, you did all the hard graft yourself! Don't forget to facepalm yourself before you go to bed. I'm off to watch AJE for a bit.
Good. Don't let the door hit you on your way out. And don't come back.
The druggie has gone to watch the Qatari state tv channel. Bless.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Coming from an alcoholic with a preference for delusional news sources, that's a bit rich.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thats not right. Truth can be used as propaganda, its about the intent of the message, not how true or false it is that determines whether something is propaganda.
Alcoholic? Is that what liberal puritans call anyone who has an occasional drink? No wonder they cosy up to islamist loons.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yes and I kind of regret my remark about truth now. I made it in response to Phils point that however true my criticisms of Gaddafi are, this is not the time to raise them.
It must be said here that there is a difference between Phils argument and the arguments raised by Casually red and Ern. Phil actually agrees with many of the criticisms that I make about Gaddafi. His argument is that however true such criticisms are, given that Libya is under attack, this is not the time to raise them. Phils argument is that we should not voice criticisms of Gaddafi in the context of Libya being under attack. He doesn't however, disagree with the content of my criticisms.
Casually red doesnt simply object to my raising criticisms at this time, he rejects as false the content of my criticism (while refusing to answer a single one) cheers every repressive measure made by Gaddafi against his people. He dismisses the uprising in its entirety as a western conspiracy and offers the Libyan people what? More of life under the jackboot of Gaddafi. Phil isn't a supporter of Gaddafi. He simply thinks criticising Gaddafi at this time is not appropriate and that the ONLY issue right now is condemnation of Western intervention.
I respect Phil argument. I disagree with it but I understand that it is a different view to that of Gaddafi cheerleaders such as Casually red. I also agree that right now, the priority is opposition to the war. I have no interest in swapping Gaddafi horror stories with those who support Western intervention. They are cynical and selective in the atrocities they choose to be outraged against and in many ways are the flip side of the coin to people like CR. To both supporters of Gaddafi and supporters of Western intervention, criticism of Gaddafi implies support for western intervention. They actually agree with each other even as they stand on opposite sides. I reject such false binaries.
It is important that those of us who do support genuine revolution in Libya speak out and offer an alternative to one dictatorship or another. The Libyan people deserve better and it is worth while for those who support Gaddafi to sit down for a moment and think about the kind of regime they are expecting the Libyan people to live under. I didn't become a socialist and an internationalist to simply condemn millions of people to live under the jackboot of dictatorship and that is what those who reject all criticism of Gaddafi are saying.
They are saying the only choice facing the Libyan people is Gaddafi or Western intervention. I reject that binary logic. I think there is an alternative. The revolutionary mobilisation of the Libyan people themselves. Mobilisation around a genuinely democratic programme that rejects both Gaddafi and another tribal dictatorship and rejects the Wests attempts to turn Libya into another colonial possession. Such a call has the potential to unite all Libyans both against Gaddafi and against Western intervention. (however unlikely it looks right now) but central to a belief in the independant mass mobilisation of the Libyan people is a refusal to support the reactionary regime that oppresses them.
As such it is impossible to remain silent in the face of those who argue that Gaddafi is the only option for Libyans. Those who support Gaddafi even as his troops shoot their own people. Claims that there is something progressive about Gaddafi cannot go unanswered.
I would rather not be spending my time exposing the absurdity of claims that Gaddafi is a progressive. I would rather spend my time condemning Western intervention. If those who support Gaddafi don't like the criticisms I raise then they should stop cheerleading him uncritically and stop making claims about the progressive nature of his regime .
Fine by me. As soon as his supporters shut up I will too and we can all focus on the issue of Western intervention. While they continue to sing his praises however, they must be answered.
This crisis began as a genuine mass movement, albeit one that was plagued by regionalism and tribalism, a mass movement that had the potential to become a genuinely national democratic struggle. Spion put it perfectly when he said the actions of the masses are at the heart of it all. I support that struggle. Even as I condemn the regionalism and racism and calls for western intervention that has poisoned it and has killed this uprising. . Revolutionaries should condemn the reactionary ideas that plague any mass movement while offering a solution that doesn't mean either siding with a dictator, supporting the west or installing a new dictatorship.
It is a sad indictment of the anti imperialist left frankly that so many can no longer see beyond uncritical support for tin pot dictators, colonels, Stalinist ex guerrillas, military officers, coup de tats, reactionary religious fanatics and the fine sounding rhetoric of the self proclaimed progressive enemies of the West. Whether it is Gaddafi, or Ahmadinadjad or Chavez or Ortega or Castro, the left for too long put all their faith in these guys without realising that( however progressive some of their policies are,) they remain a substitute to genuine self emancipation by oppressed peoples. Perhaps it is time we began to have a little more faith in the liberatory potential of people themselves.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
The thing is if one side has tanks and artillery and the ability to use it.
the other side does'nt the side lacking the artillery and tanks lose.
even the VC who were well orgainised and well armed ceased to exsist after the tet offenisve.
maybe the airstrikes will give the rebels the breathing space to come up with an alternative.
leaving them to be target practice means no alternative
Just because somebody's anti american does'nt make them a good guy.
the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemies not by friend.
the other side does'nt the side lacking the artillery and tanks lose.
even the VC who were well orgainised and well armed ceased to exsist after the tet offenisve.
maybe the airstrikes will give the rebels the breathing space to come up with an alternative.
leaving them to be target practice means no alternative
Just because somebody's anti american does'nt make them a good guy.
the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemies not by friend.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
The thing is if one side has tanks and artillery and the ability to use it.
the other side does'nt the side lacking the artillery and tanks lose.
even the VC who were well orgainised and well armed ceased to exsist after the tet offenisve.
maybe the airstrikes will give the rebels the breathing space to come up with an alternative.
leaving them to be target practice means no alternative
Just because somebody's anti american does'nt make them a good guy.
the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemies not by friend.
Just because somebody's getting rid of a dictator doesn't mean their intentions are any better.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
The thing is if one side has tanks and artillery and the ability to use it.
the other side does'nt the side lacking the artillery and tanks lose.
even the VC who were well orgainised and well armed ceased to exsist after the tet offenisve.
maybe the airstrikes will give the rebels the breathing space to come up with an alternative.
leaving them to be target practice means no alternative
Just because somebody's anti american does'nt make them a good guy.
the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemies not by friend.
The Vietnamese won though didn't they? and they won because they had something that the Libyan revolution doesn't have. Genuine mass support across the nation. This is the fatal flaw of the Libyan uprising. It liberated Benghazi but alienated Tripoli. This is what killed the libyan revolution, not Gaddafi's tanks. Gaddafi's tanks need drivers. Rank and file soldiers that a genuine revolution needs to win to its side. They didn't and part of the reason they didn't must be their responsiblity. I refuse to believe that it is impossible to win over significant section of a conscript army to the revolution. It is but it is only possible by offering them something better than Gaddafi.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think many in Benghazi dream of democratic change. The point is however, that ideal simply didn't translate into a genuinely national mass movement. It didn't. It quickly degenerated into a battle by a liberated East attempting to conquer the West (at least that is how it began to be seen by many in the West who then flocked to what they know - Gaddafi) and in that degeneration the movement increasingly acted to further alienate the West which in turn increasingly led many to side with Gaddafi. Round and round on and on. One negative reinforced the other until bankrupt and out of alternatives the call came for Western support. Calls for Western intervention were the calls of desperation by a revolution that had failed
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
