#41
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
1300+ dead so far tonight

Edited by babyfinland ()

#42
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
#43
Post rating: ~
ahve no idea what is going on in libya right now
#44
[account deactivated]
#45
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Impper posted:

ahve no idea what is going on in libya right now


#46
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
this was a good post elsewhere

statickinetics posted:
my position is that limited temporal support for gadaffi in this conflict is the Correct Line. firstly, it is utterly astounding to me that any self-described leftist would look at gadaffi and his historical lip service to anti-imperialism as anything more than political opportunism and meaningless gestures. his collaboration with the core imperialist states has been well documented and is sufficient evidence to me that he is not concerned with any long-term confrontation with the global imperialist structure. that is, of course, until the imperialist structure turned against him after he showed himself to be an unreliable ally and straying too far from the neolibarel line. that being said, as a matter of pure tactical opportunity, a defeat of the plainly CIA-led rebel movement would, as i see it, be a positive outcome. in a conflict between the core and semi-periphery, a victory for the semi-periphery necessarily limits the strategic ability of the core to function at a material but also psychological level. the current conflict is a disciplining measure. the core determined that the semi did not adhere to its line far enough and that was disrupting the transnational extraction of surplus value. this is no two-sided conflict, only a momentary physiological hiccup in the organism of capital... the body has rejected the new organ in favor of something more structurally sound, something that it can recognize.



I agree with most of the second part & the world systems analysis is eloquent



i don't agree with that person's assessment of qadaffi's role in the imperial system. he's been imperfect but very generous and broadly supportive of liberation movements with no strings attached

#47
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
some of the teenagers are fighting near gaddafi's compound according to the lie machine
#48
Post rating: ~
i think gaddafi is probably going to die
#49
[account deactivated]
#50
[account deactivated]
#51
[account deactivated]
#52
Post rating: ~
AMAZING REPORT FROM WESTERN MEDIA L@@K

#53
Post rating: ~
now my eyes is clear; thank you.
#54
[account deactivated]
#55
Post rating: ~
i am very angry & incensed over the liberal & trotskyite jubilation over the apparent "victory" over gaddafi - it is time for avenging spirits
#56
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Impper posted:
i am very angry & incensed over the liberal & trotskyite jubilation over the apparent "victory" over gaddafi - it is time for avenging spirits



yeah if you think thats bad theres tons of muslims celebrating it too, and justifying allegiance with NATO via Qur'an and Sunnah

#57
Post rating: ~
lol @ celebrating the people who literally have your names further down on a list
#58
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
i celebrate it in the sense of a god that looks down on humans and sees that one tribe has temporarily got the upper hand and i chortle and my big urn of wine sloshes
#59
Post rating: ~

Impper posted:
lol @ celebrating the people who literally have your names further down on a list



first they came for the communists... and i wooted

#60
[account deactivated]
#61
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
so you dont support alqaeda anymore? shocking. shocking.
#62
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
so you dont support alqaeda anymore? shocking. shocking.
#63
Post rating: +
damn this is a very educational experience in terms of seeing 1st worldism manifest itself even in those who seem to have a theoretically correct understanding of the world. even those who uphold stalin and mao for the real accomplishments they made for some reason cannot do the same when it applies to a situation currently happening or when it is not wrapped in pure socialism. most of the responses are incoherent but the two responses worth looking at are:

1) he wasn't in opposition for western interests on any point of principle, but only when he had no other choice

this is interesting because it elevates ideology above material conditions. as we know, socialism arrives from practice because it is the only positive alternative to capitalism. castro was no socialist until he was forced to come to terms with the inherent contradiction between nationalization of resources and american capital's greed. the experience of being made a communist (despite being a vague nationalist at the time) and invaded was the necessary step for cube to evolve into a socialist nation. the same could be said for nationalist movements that were forced to become socialist by practice: arab socialism in egypt, bolivarian socialism in venezuela, maoist peasant movements in india, etc. really any movement that has progressive policies eventually must become socialist to solve the fundamental problems. regardless of what you think of qaddafi's past regime (which must be understood with the full economic facts of Libya) this invasion would serve to radicalize him just as the bay of pigs invasion radicalized castro and the early invasion of the USSR radicalized lenin and stalin.

2) given an imperfect choice I would rather do nothing

this is an ideologically pure position which is often encountered in socialists. discipline has already gone over it in the Palestinian thread where anti-religion reactionism translates to actual suffering in the world (this also happened against liberation theologists by so called socialists in america who are now upheld after the fact) but it goes beyond any specific bigotry to a more general utopianism based on privilege. No one would say to someone living in Libya that they can "do nothing" if they don't like either side, and yet this becomes a valid choice when it doesn't affect you personally. To do nothing while an imperialist invasion conducted by your own people in the name of your own propaganda is waged on a third world country which you still feel is worthy of your 1st world judgement is functionally the same as being a reporter for the NYT cheering for the looting of libya. In fact it may be worse because it comes from a "leftist" perspective and so undermines what little opposition to imperialism there might even be in the 1st world. Noam Chomsky (who is a liberal) is more correct than many socialists on this issue when he says that any criticism of regimes the United States wants to overthrow will be used by imperialist propaganda and is functionally the same as it. Furthermore, morally you only have the right to speak about things you have an effect over, in this case being the murderous imperialist war being conducted in your name.

Libya is another Yugoslavia for the current generation of leftists, and even further should reveal not that trotskyists were opposed to yugoslavia because of the shadow of "stalinism" (though that's the justification) but because of a fundamental flaw in the ideology which derives from liberal utopianism, which in the end derives from the labor aristocratic privileged conditions of most 1st world "socialists".
#64
[account deactivated]
#65
[account deactivated]
#66
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
that's a good post baby huey but I feel it necessary to note that Nasser was virulently anti-communist and only dealt with the USSR at all because the US wouldn't. that and that land reform was top priority for him from the beginning (land reform and nationalization of industry being what "arab socialism" amounted to)
#67
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
huey i'd be interested in your spelling out what your position is in general in a thread, on like strategy and so on. for example, which thinkers you lean on and so on.
#68
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
I should say that my views are incoherent at this point. I have an immense amount left to read before I can be of any use to anyone.
#69
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
To be honest I am a shaytan and I believe Chaos Reigns. I am a settler in the West Bank.
#70
[account deactivated]
#71
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name. What's puzzling you is the nature of my game.
#72
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:
I should say that my views are incoherent at this point. I have an immense amount left to read before I can be of any use to anyone.



me too i have so many books to read. i'll get back to your post about my politics in general later when i have time, i definitely want to explain since you were the first socialist poster back when i was a liberal/libertarian shithead many SA accounts ago.

#73
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
well it looks like the qadaafi loyalists lured the rebels into tripoli and then "broke their back" according to saif qadaafi, either way both BBC and CNN are now reporting that tripoli is not under rebel control after all



thats our qadaafi!

#74
Post rating: ~
condolences to the dead people of trippli, if there are survivors from this incident you could have been one too, your deaths were in vain
#75
:morF
Post rating: ~
oh man this is reeeeally a stretch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14621132

However in the area where I currently live, some have already extended a reconciliatory hand to known regime loyalists who happen to be neighbours.

In one case, the family man handed over three Kalashnikovs when he was asked to "bring out" what he had, then was politely instructed to remain at home and "not cause any trouble".

"All will be well between us," he was reassured.

A promising sign perhaps that wounds may eventually be healed - as long as that example is widely followed in the coming days.



that doesnt seem like a reassuring situation to me!!!!! but that was actually the little sideblurb for the article:

"All will be well between us”

Neighbour's reassurance to Gaddafi loyalist



this is like 2-stage spin, first the particular event is construed as a conciliatory act by morally upstanding citizens who seek only their own enfranchisement and just want to get on with a better life; the claim of no grudges is emphasized while the facts of seizure of weapons and house arrest are glossed over, whitewashing the inherent duress of the situation (and this is even assuming that the situation was as "polite" as the article presents it!) second this anodyne interpretation is made emblematic of the effects on the social fabric from the larger event of urban warfare, as if violent retribution, resentment form loss of loved ones, looting and destruction, all of the trauma can be overcome by people uniting in rebuilding a free society (which is what this is all about and why humanitarian intervention is a good thing to do)

its not like i think the author is consciously doing this, like its appealing to cheer for rebels, if there is editor picking the side quote then heartwarming magnanimity of rebels on the verge of victory attracts readers to news site to up ad views. but look at it.... chicken soup for liberal ideology soul, fwiggin... l@@k

#76
Post rating: ~

babyhueypnewton posted:


thanks for this.

#77
Post rating: ~
Some people in that other forum were accusing Gaddafi of complicity in Thomas Sankara's assassination. Is there actually any evidence for that beyond what Momo's (and how reliable is he?) claimed in that Italian documentary released awhile ago?
#78
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:
Some people in that other forum were accusing Gaddafi of complicity in Thomas Sankara's assassination. Is there actually any evidence for that beyond what Momo's (and how reliable is he?) claimed in that Italian documentary released awhile ago?


lol

#79
[account deactivated]
#80
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~


good summary of the situation thus far