Libya rebels say Younis killers were ‘Islamist element’
It’s going to be even less good for Libya if this turns into a three-cornered civil war.
This one ain’t too ripe.
Actually, basically, Frank? 5 PM and I had to leave work, and I’d lose access to my source at home. These things go like that.
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you there. As matters currently stand, the only truly catastrophic outcome for Libya would be victory by the current crop of traitors. These “people,” to use the term loosely, have proven themselves too weak and cowardly to take on the armed forces on their own, yet perfectly willing to whine and cajole for illegal aid from the corrupt and imperialistic West. They have betrayed their own people by calling in savage crusaders to slaughter their brothers and sisters for them.
If these monsters win, then Libya as a nation is doomed. It will be thoroughly exploited by the West, its proud people enslaved and humiliated. It will become a banana republic without bananas.
Against this background, the emergence of any force opposed to the corrupt Western-backed traitors is very much a positive development. Hence, I welcome these “Islamists” onto the scene. Who knows? If they prevail and introduce an Iranian-type government to the nation, they may actually prove to be an improvement over the Colonel’s administration.
Considering the way the Iranian government imprisoned, tortured, and murdered members of the Iranian communist Party I don’t see how any reasonable person can take seriously anyone who professes to be both a communist and a fan of the Ayatollah Khamenei.
Masochism?
Iranian secret policeman: “…have you noticed that all the Communists we arrest these days are foreigners wearing lots of black leather? Odd…”
Your libelous attacks on anyone in the conflict with whom you disagree is unacceptable. This is a debate forum, not your soapbox at some Stalinist political rally. “Cowardly”? How would you know? And “savage Crusaders”? The importance of religious differences in all this is negligible.
Enough with the trolling.
Enough with the spreading of ignorance.
Yeah, I think I don’t plan to waste my time, thanks. I lived in the Soviet Union and have seen far too much of the aftermath of totalitarianism to be bothered debating its “merits.”
Am well aware of the religious makeup of Russia, but really am not seeing Libya as primarily a religious conflict. So I’m not really sure what “Christendom” has to do with anything. That was my point.
My position is no more strongly worded than that of many of the posters in this particular thread. Look at your own post, for example, wherein you condemn my argument as “libelous” and denounce my ideology as “Stalinist.” It seems to me that you don’t have a problem with strongly-argued positions; you simply dislike my particular stance on the topic.
As I have stated over and over, I strongly believe that religion is a central key to understanding why the West is attacking Libya. Hardly “negligible,” as you would have me believe. Are we now no longer allowed to hold views that differ from those of a moderator? Odd.
I’m a bit confused why Commissar, our resident supposed Communist and supposed Russian immigrant is now offended at being called a Stalinist considering how often he’s supported clearly Stalinist government.
It’s almost as if he’s merely trying to piss people off(or trolling in Internetspeak) rather than make actual arguments.
Oil is better than bananas.
I am not “offended,” since the term does not necessarily hold negative connotations for me, and I respect Stalinism as a school of Marxist-Leninist thought. However, as I have made abundantly clear, I do not belong to this school, and hence cannot be said to be a Stalinist.
Moreover, “libel” has a very specific legal meaning, that meaning being written defamation. Defamation, by definition, is directed at either individuals or extremely small and identifiable groups of individuals. Criticizing a major national movement without mentioning any individuals cannot be “libelous.”
Hence, Spectre appears to have no difficulty applying clearly erroneous labels to me… Yet he takes issue with me calling the Libyan traitors “cowards?” Even if that is an erroneous labels, haven’t we just established that erroneous labels are perfectly acceptable on this board? I am thoroughly confused by whatever point he’s trying to make.
As far as Exxon Mobil is concerned, sure. As far as the Libyan people are concerned, if the rebels seize power, than they can kiss their oil goodbye. Libya would become yet another third-world backwater wallowing in poverty as the Western corporations rape it of all its resources. So, yes, the Latin American experiences with Western neo-imperialism would be directly relevant here. If the rebels win, then Libya has no future.
Yes, that was my point. The NATO campaign is being led by secular European nations (aggressively secular in its domestic culture and politics in the case of France, for example) and was strongly pushed for by the Muslim nations of the Arab League.
See Spectre’s Warning on the subject for an elaboration.
I included the bit about Russia to note that for some reason, Commissar repeatedly uses the most inaccurate, inflammatory labels possible when discussing the nations most posters here hail from, but when discussing totalitarian states, all of a sudden those labels stop and Pravda Speak begins. So the West is “Christendom” and America is generally only referred to as “the Empire” and NATO and various powers are “Crusaders” for invading Libya and it’s “illegal” for them to have done so, even though Commissar has gone on record as stating that someone can never say something is legal or illegal under international law unless a tribunal has already ruled on that specific event. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, an actual empire which spanned 13 time zones during its height and brutally crushed the sovereignty of multiple nations that it overran is generally referred to, simply, as “Glorious!”. Its invasions to conquer neighboring nations were not “crusading” but were “good faith” invasions. And so on.
Or maybe it might become like Venezuela, with a government that spends the oil revenue on raising the standard of living for the people, quite unlike what Gaddafi has done with it.
That would be ideal, but I see no way of getting there from the reference point of the current treacherous rebellion.
The great leader Hugo Chavez was obviously not brought into power through the power of foreign enemies; he was installed and supported by the people of Venezuela. He was able to tirelessly work for their benefit precisely because he was neither beholden to nor reliant on corrupt Western regimes and their heartless corporate oligarchies. He was able to develop a successful socialist plan precisely because there were no capitalist overlords around to order him to strangle the project in its crib.
Now look at the Libyan traitors. Their weakness is astounding, and they lack the means or popular support to achieve their own goals. Consequently, they have sold out their nation to their greatest enemy. They have allowed Christendom to once again trample and defile their beautiful land. Keep in mind that the West is a savage beast that does nothing out of basic human decency - any “good” done by it is expected to be paid back ten times over, using the currency of human misery.
So, no, Libya will not become socialist Venezuela if the West’s lapdogs take over. A much better example would be the CIA-backed coup against the democratic government of Iran in 1953. Do you remember how well the resulting Shah dictatorship worked out for the nation? Do you recall what was done with Iran’s oil? I would familiarize yourself with this history, for it is being repeated before our very eyes:
Battle between rebels and “rogue faction.”
Queasier and queasier.
You are not in any way “confused,” hence the accusation of trolling. You persistently mislabel everyone that you are attacking, doing so in a way that is intended to rile up the readers of your posts that know that you are simply yanking chains. That is pretty much the definition of trolling. You have been permitted to continue this discussion on the grounds that you truly might have just been a sincere believer in your schtick. However, that point has passed. Your more recent posts have been intended solely to get a rise out of posters with unrealistic, and frankly stupid, mischaracterizations of the rebels and their European allies, while deliberately ignoring their Arab allies.
You have not been told to refrain from arguing for Gaddafi and against the rebellion. You have simply been told to do it in an honest fashion that avoids the silly, trolling labels that you have been employing.
Any further disingenuous “Who, me?” or “What did I do?” posts will be considered an effort to ignore Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
Er… thank you for explaining my own intent to me. Now I finally understand what I actually meant to say when I said what I said.
As for the labels I use in discussing the rebels, none of them are “silly” or “disingenuous.” It is my good-faith conclusion that the rebels are “traitors,” for they are committing treason by going against the lawful government of Libya. It is my good-faith conclusion that they are “cowards,” for they have chosen to sit back and let stronger foreigners fight their battles for them, and that to me is classical cowardice. Once again, yes, these are strong labels, but I have not seen a single moderator complain about the far more numerous strong labels being applied to the Colonel’s side.
Indeed, the only mischaracterizations I have seen here are the erroneous labels used by Spectre and you to attack me (“libelous,” "Stalinist,“disingenuous,” etc.)
I must also point out that you yourself are completely mischaracterizing the conflict - something that you claim you want to discourage. For example: “ignoring Arab allies?” What Arab allies? What Arab nation is currently using its air force to bomb Libyan lands? Pretending that something is true does not make it true. The only nations engaged in this illegal bombing campaign are predominantly Christian ones, and I find that to be a point of central importance. You cannot simply handwave that point out of existence by positing imaginary Arab participation.
“Imaginary Arab participation”?
You consider the Arab League “imaginary”?