Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Idaho]

Alcoholic? Is that what liberal puritans call anyone who has an occasional drink? No wonder they cosy up to islamist loons.

Occasionally at 11am, but otherwise starting at 4pm?

 

[phildwyer]

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.

I know that mate. In fact my criticisms of you would probably be better directed elsewhere. The cynicism of the anti-Gadaffi, pro-Western crowd has made me cynical in response. Your analyses of the situation throughout north Africa have been the most interesting I've seen anywhere.

 

[weltweit]

A UK Airforce bod has recently said in the media that our air forces should be prepared to be in the region for six months.

The rebels are training soldiers in Benghazi, but the training consists of two weeks with only three rifles for each twenty men. There are apparently no shortage of volunteers. It is not clear if Egypt is still sending small arms, perhaps they stepped back from this policy.

Apparently there are some regime army defectors in the rebel front line now around Brega which is serving to increase their professionalism.

 

[Casually Red]

A UK Airforce bod has recently said in the media that our air forces should be prepared to be in the region for six months.

The rebels are training soldiers in Benghazi, but the training consists of two weeks with only three rifles for each twenty men. There are apparently no shortage of volunteers. It is not clear if Egypt is still sending small arms, perhaps they stepped back from this policy.

Apparently there are some regime army defectors in the rebel front line now around Brega which is serving to increase their professionalism.

Well it must mean theyre runing away more professionally because the Libyan army have just captured it despite bombardment from the rebels NATO airforce .
The reactionaries have now fled to Ajdabiya

 

[Casually Red]

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

they were calling for western support almost from day one , and making up hysterical tales to ensure it came from day one . Benghazi is an ultraconservative hub of Islamist head hackers and fatwah issuing clerics . Their royalist flag has got nothing to do with democracy and never had , only reactionary politics . One of the very first acts they commiteed was the massacre and mutilation of conscript soldiers in a barracks and then tried to tell the world Ghadaffi had set them on fire for refusing to massacre protestors . Then they started hunting the blacks . Tens of thousands were fleeing from them from day one while they were calling for the west to bomb their fellow Libyans into submission ..

 

[dylans]

they were calling for western support almost from day one , and making up hysterical tales to ensure it came from day one . Benghazi is an ultraconservative hub of Islamist head hackers and fatwah issuing clerics . Their royalist flag has got nothing to do with democracy and never had , only reactionary politics .

No they weren't. In any case we don't offer our support or otherwise to a popular uprising on the basis of whether or not we approve of their politics. We offer support based on the class nature of their struggle and the justice of their cause. I supported the IRA in Ireland though I had serious criticisms of Sinn Fein. I support the Palestinians but I have serious criticisms of the Islamism that ihas nfected the Palestinian cause and the corruption of its leaders. I supported Solidarnosc but I hate the Catholicism of Lech Walesa. I supported the overthrow of Ceausescu though I hated the anti gay bigotry that was shown by Romanians. in all these cases my support was based on one thing only. An understanding that the struggle was a genuine expression of the popular will and a struggle against oppression and injustice. I supported them despite their politics. I supported them because they were genuine expressions of self determination.

My support was unconditional but it remained critical. Most importantly of all was the argument that the elements of reactionary politics in these struggles made it harder to win and would not offer what those in struggle need. This is exactly the same in Libya. I support the popular uprising but recognised that the regionalism of its politics made it impossible to win. What I do not do is say "I disagree with this or that demand or this or that aim or this or that symbol therefore I will take sides with their vicious murdering oppressor and cheer as they are crushed

In the case of Benghazi there was and is only one question that mattered. Was it a genuine mass supported uprising embraced by the people of that city. The answer to that is undoubtedly YES. All the rest, the shitty politics, the reactionary flag etc are legitimate cause for criticism and in some cases as in racism, condemnation, not least because as I have argued regionalist and tribal based demands simply could not win, None of that takes away from the one incontroversial fact that the uprising in Benghazi was an genuine expression of the popular will. Show me a popular uprising anywhere that shows no expression of reactionary politics at one level or another. You can't because there is no pure revolution.

To oppose this uprising there is only one argument that you can use that I have any respect for. That is to show that there is no mass support for it. That Gaddafi is the expression of the Libyan peoples will and that therefore attempts to overthrow him are entirely inspired by the CIA and have no basis for support amongst Libyans. And of course you try. To do this you are forced to indulge in conspiracy theory and plain denial of the facts. I agree that Gaddafi has some support. I think Tripoli is, if not with Gaddafi, permanently alienated from the rebellion and that the blame for that should lie at the feet of the rebels. I agree that the uprising is regional in scope. I agree with all that but to deny that Benghazi threw out the regime in a mass uprising is simply delusional. They did. They were right to do so and everyone who calls themselves a socialist or a revolutionary should support them without condition.

You are so keen to condemn this uprising in its entirety. You can condemn it for its politics. You can condemn it for its regionalism and tribalism, its waving of the Idris flag, its appeal to imperialism. Its racism but you are deluded if you think the uprising in Benghazi wasn't a genuine mass movement. Or that Gaddafi is anything but despised by the people of that city. You can do all that but what you cannot do is offer the Libyan people any alternative but more of the same vicious repression that has suffocated them for 40 years. That's all you have to offer. Gaddafi or the West. You have no alternative and no answer to the question "what are the libyan people to do?" .

You are utterly bankrupt. There is something seriously twisted and warped in a socialist supporting a repressive reactionary dictatorship against his own people. Your compass is broken. You expect the Libyan people to live under a tyranny and repression that you don't have to suffer and that you will never experience. Moral cowardice at its worst

 

[TruXta]

Benghazi is an ultraconservative hub of Islamist head hackers and fatwah issuing clerics.

I thought you'd be all for those types of people, seeing as how loads of them are engaged in the fight against the great imperialist Satan...

 

[dylans]

I thought you'd be all for those types of people, seeing as how loads of them are engaged in the fight against the great imperialist Satan...

The irony is he probably cheers when the Iranian regime crushes the green movement and calls Iranian demonstrators "reactionaries"

 

[London_Calling]

Contrary to what I assumed to be the case yesterday, at least a little oil is under the control of 'rebel forces' - about 100,00 barrels a day it seems.

The first tanker docked this morning outside Tugruq and will add proper money into the coffers.

 

[Casually Red]

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.

theres no difference . Ive a multitude of criticisms of Ghadaffi , Ive pointed out Ivea multitude of criticisms of the sandinistas too . Like Phil Ive pointed out consistently now is not the time to be making them . At no stage have I calimed the man should never be criticised . I also pointed out initially when I thought he was faced with a progressive mass movement I felt compelled to support it on principle . That position changed only when it becme apparent very early on it was a reactionary western backed counter revolution .

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.

Bolocks , your a dishonest SOB .

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.

Its the Libyan people who are resisting imperialism and reactionaries today . I offer them my support . Ghdaffi could not stand at this point without their support and their sacrifice . Thats abundantly clear . They are the ones volunteering to fight in their thousands , they are the ones being bombed and strafed in case youd forgotten . Its their national sovereignty being violated by western aggression . Under your handwringing analysis they are completely passive in this affair . Utter rubbish , farcical . Its simply inconvenient to your analysis so you completely ignore the fact Ghadaffi would have been finished long ago only for them intervening .

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.

your only making up your analysis as you go along , trying to shoehorn it into some trot textbook myth

 

[Casually Red]

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.

no , what they are saying is you calling for the governments overthrow at the very same time as NATO bombs are raining down on Libya to support a reactionary counter revolution can and will be taken as justification for them . That there is an appropriate time for such statements and now is most definitely not it . Your comments have the stench of hoping the West can succeed and perhaps the reactionaries can be converted to socialism afterwards .

They are saying the only choice facing the Libyan people is Gaddafi or Western intervention. I reject that binary logic.

whether you reject it or not , and no matter how many times you use the word binary incessantly , right now that is the only choice . As inconvenient as that may be for your trot discourse . You are rejecting logic in its entirety .

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.

such an alternative and such a call exists absolutely nowhere except in your head . That is the problem . What we actually have now in the real world as opposed to the theory textbook is western imperialism versus the Libyan people . Theyve chosen to support their sovereign head of state and defend their sovereignty against western imperialism . Thats what they are being bombed into submission for . Therefore without any shred of doubt that defence of Libyan sovereignty has to be the number one priority for anti imperialists , even if it means supporting Ghadaffi in this instance . Just as oppositon to Nazi expansionism meant supporting Stalin by default . Tomorrow may be a different story but today its a clear cut case .

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.

Ghadaffi has the support of his people and has it for a reason at a moment when it would take minmum effort for them to topple him . Despite his multitude of faults he has without doubt supported anti imperialist projects accross the globe . He also transformed Libya from medieval feudaldom . AGin that is inconvenient so you choose to ignore it and intstead make an argument that by default is one vociferously for regime change now at all costs at the very same time NAO is intent on regime change . Thats not anti imperialism no matter how you qualify it , your intent cannot be misunderstood . You are clearly not oblivious to the war currently being waged aginst Libya

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 .

The regime that the Libyan people are curently resisting western military might for . But youd rather not mention that either .

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.

you keep calling it by that sterile term intervention . Its naked imperialist aggression and theft of its resources . They are waging war against Libya , not just interfering . Qatar arent a western power . Neither are the UAE .

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.

Did it fuck , your completely contradicting yourself in the persuit of wishful thinking and trot theory . This is wholly dishonest and underlines the real reason for your spin . It began as a protest in the Islamist stronghold of Benghazi on behalf of imprisoned Al Qaeda members who were still in jail despite Ghadaffis promise to relase them all in exchange for their promising not to be head hacking nutjobs any more . Ghadaffi responded to the initial unrest by releasing 100 of them . They went on the rampage at this sign of weakness , straight for the arms dumps , and then made spurious claims that Libyan airforce was bombing them for protesting and setting mercenaries on them . Right from the outset they were courting and laying the ground for imperialist war on their behalf - in precisely the same manner the reactionaries did it against Hugo Chavez , succeeding in turning his army against him . Right from the outset they were waving the royalist flag .
It was never a mass movement at any stage . Even Ghadaffi opponents never joined it . It was a reactionary coup attempt . It had no potential ever only but that . Thats why the majority of Libyans rejected it .
This is just frantic wishful thinking on your part to enable you to cling tight to your textbook .

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.

bollocks , such an entity never existed anywhere but in your head .

. 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.

youre away with it now . But its definitely becoming clearer that your solution and the wests can find mutual ground .

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.

its a sad indictment of the left that sections of it are openly calling for regime change alongside NATO imperialist aggression and calling a bunch of reactionary royalists and conservatives with NATO as their airforce a genuine mass movement that sadly got led astray somehow . They were no more a genuine mass movement than Reagans contras , Carmonas reactionary multitudes or the UDA - and im quite sure there were sections of the left who could find reasons to give de facto support for all of those outifits too under the gouise of wishful thinking and textbook theorizing trying to shoehorn reactionaries into a quasi revolutionary mould.

 

[TruXta]

There you go again Cas with your fictional entity "the Libyan people". So I take you don't think the rebels are either a) Libyan or b) people?

 

[dylans]

It began as a protest in the Islamist stronghold of Benghazi on behalf of imprisoned Al Qaeda members who were still in jail despite Ghadaffis promise to relase them all in exchange for their promising not to be head hacking nutjobs any more . Ghadaffi responded to the initial unrest by releasing 100 of them . They went on the rampage at this sign of weakness , straight for the arms dumps , and then made spurious claims that Libyan airforce was bombing them for protesting and setting mercenaries on them . Right from the outset they were courting and laying the ground for imperialist war on their behalf - in precisely the same manner the reactionaries did it against Hugo Chavez , succeeding in turning his army against him . Right from the outset they were waving the royalist flag .

What a load of dishonest bollocks. The Benghazi uprising began several days before a planned facebook built day of rage planned for the 17th of February. An event directly inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia. To omit the most significant political developments in the region and to ignore their effects on Libya is absurd and dishonest. The national day of protests were called for February 17th and organised by writer and activist Jamal al-Hajji. On the 8th of February he was arrested by the regime and his arrest sparked protests which were met with extreme violence by the state.

Jamal al-Hajji’s arrest came shortly after he made a call on the internet for demonstrations to be held in support of greater freedoms in Libya, in the manner of recent mass protests in Tunisia, Egypt and other states across the Middle East and North Africa.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libyan-writer-detained-following-protest-call-2011-02-08
Fearful of the 17th the regime moved to arrest activists and arrested the activist lawyer Fethi Tarbel. And it was his arrest that led to demonstrations outside the Benghazi courthouse on the 15th and activists attempted a Tahrir style camp outside the courthouse. They were crushed with live bullets and it was this repression that led to an uprising in Benghazi and several other towns. By the 17th it had become an insurrection. The inspiration for the Benghazi uprising was Egypt not Al Qaeda.

Your attempt to rewrite history is a credit to Orwell but alas all too transparent.

But its definitely becoming clearer that your solution and the wests can find mutual ground

.

No it is your solution that finds common ground with the wests. You both offer the Libyan people nothing but dictatorship and repression

 

[Casually Red]

No they weren't.

yes they fucking were , dont insult our intelligence . They were running a campaign of deliberate disinformation from the very outset ( highly successful it must be admitted) , with a lot of help from the west . That very professionally produced and non spontaneous massive banner in English was aimed directly at a western television audience . It wasnt any statement of their credentials to their fellow Libyans by any stretch of the imagination , who already knew them full well . It was unfurled for the cameras directly alongside their calls for just a little no fly zone please , no actual intervention..but maybe a few weapons . And their claims that protestors were being bombed and eaten by mercenaries .
In rebelspeak "non intervention" is every bit as Orwellian as civilian demonstrator . , as suspected ]mercenary, as Ghadaffi infiltrator .A no fly zone that means bomb everything that moves or doesnt move . As fake as the happy babies glad theyre being bombed by NATO jets or ghadaffi taking bodies from freezers to plant at bomb sites . It gave dupes like you the encouragment you needed to support their cause .

You only need to google the term to see those fucks saying no intervention in one breath and no fly zone in the other , while calling for weapons . You must think we all have goldfish memories .

 

[Casually Red]

There you go again Cas with your fictional entity "the Libyan people". So I take you don't think the rebels are either a) Libyan or b) people?

i take it you think the people running those bums out of town are from Mars

 

[dylans]

those fucks

Here we have your bankruptcy in a nutshell. An oppressed people, living under the jackboot of a murderous police state are reduced to "those fucks" by a so called socialist who, safe in the knowledge that he will never have to live under a tyrannical regime that rules by fear, torture and fear of the knock at the door in the night dismisses an oppressed people as "those fucks". What a massive massive wanker you truly are.

 

[TruXta]

i take it you think the people running those bums out of town are from Mars

No, I'm just trying to get you to clarify who these rebels are if they aren't Libyan people. You keep banging on about how the Libyan people are defending Col G, makes me wonder who you think the rebels are.

 

[phildwyer]

... we don't offer our support or otherwise to a popular uprising on the basis of whether or not we approve of their politics. We offer support based on the class nature of their struggle and the justice of their cause. I supported the IRA in Ireland though I had serious criticisms of Sinn Fein. I support the Palestinians but I have serious criticisms of the Islamism that ihas nfected the Palestinian cause and the corruption of its leaders. I supported Solidarnosc but I hate the Catholicism of Lech Walesa. I supported the overthrow of Ceausescu though I hated the anti gay bigotry that was shown by Romanians. in all these cases my support was based on one thing only. An understanding that the struggle was a genuine expression of the popular will and a struggle against oppression and injustice. I supported them despite their politics. I supported them because they were genuine expressions of self determination.

Hmm. From what you say here it seems that you would support any expression of popular will, regardless of its content. Is that a fair approximation of your position?

If so I must say I'm surprised, because historically people have often been brought to desire some pretty reprehensible outcomes. Aggressive imperialism can easily be an expression of the popular will. Are you sure that you mean what you're saying?

 

[Casually Red]

What a load of dishonest bollocks. The Benghazi uprising began several days before a planned facebook built day of rage planned for the 17th of February. An event directly inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia. To omit the most significant political developments in the region and to ignore their effects on Libya is absurd and dishonest. The national day of protests were called for February 17th and organised by writer and activist Jamal al-Hajji. On the 8th of February he was arrested by the regime and his arrest sparked protests which were met with extreme violence by the state.

bollocks , there were no protests worth speaking of following his arrest for knocking someone over in his car . Even your amnesty report makes no mention of them Riots between pro and anti Ghadaffi factions in Benghazi broke out on the streets a week later .

Fearful of the 17th the regime moved to arrest activists and arrested the activist lawyer Fethi Tarbel. And it was his arrest that led to demonstrations outside the Benghazi courthouse on the 15th and activists attempted a Tahrir style camp outside the courthouse.

An activist lawyer on behalf of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group , and the activists you speak of relatives , members and supporters of the same Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and its prisoners. The 17th protest was called to commemorate hardline Islamists who were killed trying to storm the Italian consulae in Benghazi in 2006 enraged over the Mohammed cartoons . Internationally the thing was being egged on by the usual exile groups and royalists based in the UK and USA . They were openly calling for a " campaign of incitement" on US based Arabic satellite channels . The display of the royalist flag immdiately afterwards points directly towards its inspiration

They were crushed with live bullets and it was this repression that led to an uprising in Benghazi and several other towns. By the 17th it had become an insurrection. The inspiration for the Benghazi uprising was Egypt not Al Qaeda.

Bollocks . The lawyer had been released within less than 48 hours . The day of rage was called to commemorate the Benghazi martyrs killed trying to decapitate Italians over a Danish cartoon .

Your attempt to rewrite history is a credit to Orwell but alas all too transparent.

jesus
.

No it is your solution that finds common ground with the wests. You both offer the Libyan people nothing but dictatorship and repression

i think youll find that both they and you are calling for regime change in Libya at exactly the same time , a time when theyre attacking the place and possibly poised to invade on behalf of the genuine but flawed mass movement you support. Now trot along like a good chap .

 

[Casually Red]

Hmm. From what you say here it seems that you would support any expression of popular will, regardless of its content. Is that a fair approximation of your position?

If so I must say I'm surprised, because historically people have often been brought to desire some pretty reprehensible outcomes. Aggressive imperialism can easily be an expression of the popular will. Are you sure that you mean what you're saying?

he opposes Ghadaffi over and above anything else . From the trot perspective because people like Ghadaffi , Castro , Chavez , Sandinistas etc have political currency amongst revolutionary activists then their destruction is an overriding priority over and above that of anyone else .They are the real enemy from their viewpoint . Only then following their removal can the global revolution proceed according to their little textbook . Thats why Trots are often despised as 5th columnists

Despite being careful to couch his language you can see he's very hopeful the outcome of this will be Ghadaffis overthrow and angry everytime the possibility is raised it wont be because he has the Libyan peoples support . Thats his primary concern and thats why he insists the rebel forces have a progressive origin so he can begin to justify it .
Thats why he's much more exercised and animated in his outpourings of rage about myself , Chavez , Ghadaffi etc than he is about the fact Western countries are actually bombing Libya and siphoning off its resources as we speak . Setting further precedents for further imperialist escapads that can now be engineered via Twitter from Cuba to Venezuela to pretty much anywhere the telly can convince us for a few days innocent protestors are being bombed by an airforce .
Atleast Al Qaeda and Al moujahiroun have no qualms about openly supporting the campaign and the Al Qada backed " revolution" - Allah being happy the crusaders and the apostates are killing each other - but he has to support it without being seen to support it . His secularism leaving him no recourse to Allah .

 

[Casually Red]

No, I'm just trying to get you to clarify who these rebels are if they aren't Libyan people. You keep banging on about how the Libyan people are defending Col G, makes me wonder who you think the rebels are.

a much smaller and reactionary section of the Libyan people . Modern day royalists just like the royalists whom Ghadaffi overthrew who were happy to colloborate in Libyas subjection to foreign imperialism . Traitors to their nation pretty much .

 

[Casually Red]

double post

 

[TruXta]

a much smaller and reactionary section of the Libyan people . Modern day royalists just like the royalists whom Ghadaffi overthrew who were happy to colloborate in Libyas subjection to foreign imperialism . Traitors to their nation pretty much .

The proof for which exists solely between your ears.

 

[dylans]

Hmm. From what you say here it seems that you would support any expression of popular will, regardless of its content. Is that a fair approximation of your position?

If so I must say I'm surprised, because historically people have often been brought to desire some pretty reprehensible outcomes. Aggressive imperialism can easily be an expression of the popular will. Are you sure that you mean what you're saying?

Clearly not. If a popular movement embraced anti working class or reactionary oppressive politics then of course not. I said " a struggle against oppression and injustice" and clearly a struggle against a dictatorship falls into that category. However I do not take my stance on whether to support or not to support a popular uprising based on whether I agree with all of its politics and neither do I dismiss such a struggle as a whole because of the possible existence of reactionary elements within it.

What mattered in Benghazi is that the people of that town rose up against a repressive police state. As such it was an expression of democratic aspirations and a genuinely popular movement . I support it on those terms. Now suppose that as the struggle goes on, the movement becomes to be led by Islamist forces. Would I then drop all support because I don't like their politics. Of course not. I would remain critical but my support remains unconditional.. and that support is not based on the politics of that movement. It is based on its genuinely popular character

 

[IC3D]

a much smaller and reactionary section of the Libyan people . Modern day royalists just like the royalists whom Ghadaffi overthrew who were happy to colloborate in Libyas subjection to foreign imperialism . Traitors to their nation pretty much .

You just make shit up as you go along lol, we get it he supported the IRA he's a hero.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Anarchostalinists have no heroes, fool.

That's because there's no such thing as an anarchostalinist. You reactionary, Fictitious Fool

 

[Casually Red]

Here we have your bankruptcy in a nutshell. An oppressed people, living under the jackboot of a murderous police state are reduced to "those fucks" by a so called socialist who, safe in the knowledge that he will never have to live under a tyrannical regime that rules by fear, torture and fear of the knock at the door in the night dismisses an oppressed people as "those fucks". What a massive massive wanker you truly are.

I grew up in the shadow of long kesh you idiot , our door wasnt knocked but booted through and my father carted off to be returned black and blue minus teeth a number of times after dodging internment in earlier years. Our home was machine gunned by the death squads your government armed and sponsored . Incriminating evidence was planted in it to try and secure my fathers removal for good and when that failed the assassins attempted it . I spent my entire life under your governments guns and watchtowers and helicopters hovering over the house every night for hours, with close relatives jailed and neighbours gunned down . And while the trots did fuck all Mr Ghadaffi sent boat loads of guns to try and put an end to it . Thats doesnt make me any type of traumatised martyr or higher up on the rung of MOPERY than anyone else but feelings of safety and security have most certainly never been an aspect of my own life , not even at home in bed .

Massive wanker I may be but I bow in awe to the gargantuan , nay epic , proportions , of your own onanistic capabilities .

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Casually Red, who are you trying to convince here? You are so far off the mark you're floating in space.

You are living in some sort of 1975 time warp. The war in Ireland is over. You keep referring back to events in 30 years ago to justify your political stance now. It's absurd. Society, politics and the struggle has moved on.

 

[yield]

a much smaller and reactionary section of the Libyan people . Modern day royalists just like the royalists whom Ghadaffi overthrew who were happy to colloborate in Libyas subjection to foreign imperialism . Traitors to their nation pretty much .

Very true. The rebels fly the flag of King Idris al-Sanousi Libya's former monarch.

And they have the support of al-Qaeda.

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side
Daily Telegraph 18 Mar 2011

Statements of support for Libya's revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.

 

[dylans]

I grew up in the shadow of long kesh blah blah blah

l
and the lesson of that experience leads you to condemn the people of Libya to a lifetime under a police state, to side with the source of their oppression and call them "fucks" and "bums" when they resist. I was right you are a massive massive wanker.