You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
'bye Junkyard.
Not obvious to me, I'm afraid, except that the shadow of an Islamic Theocracy taking over sort of "echoes" the threat of a National Socialist government taking the stage nearby...
Tell me if I've "misquoted you" Woppit ........ won't you ?
No worries.
Given TJ's views on the legitimacy of the rebels I can't wait for the debate about independence for Jocklandia, when he realises that the legitimate government by his terms is the UK as a whole and that there would therefore be less than no chance of the jocks hsving their way other than us, "the legitimate authority" getting bored with their whining, which to be fair is not to big a leap of the imagination.
I don't remember ever having called for armed rebellion.
I don't remember ever having called for armed rebellion.
To be fair to TJ, this is true - he clearly calls for an Election of a Scottish president:
[img] 
[/img]
Credibility of the NTC isn't looking good - the statement by the commander of forces appears to be contradicted by the video evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412529
Unless I've missed something - which appears quite likely.
im guessing the problem will be that all those guns, rpgs, rocket launchers etc etc etc france/uk/italy/nato supplied to the rebels will stay in the hands of various militias the NTC will fragment into
at least the predator drones were operated from texas! and the sas will be coming home
According to your link aracer :
[i]Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril told the BBC: "At the personal level I wish [Col Gaddafi] was alive. I want to know why he did this to the Libyan people."[/i]
You would have thought that Mr Jibril had a chance to ask Col Gaddafi those sort of questions during the period from 2007 until a few months ago, when he was Gaddafi's head of the National Economic Development Board.
There are only seven nations left in the world that are not borrowing from a Rothschild cartel bank: Iran, Syria, Algeria, North Korea, Sudan, Iceland, and Cuba. Those countries create their own money for their own people; and interest rates are low or zero. National banks that recently fell to the Rothschild cartel include: Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently, Libya (on day 4 of the recent invas...ion). http://www.wearechange.org/?p=9351 Libya, the untold story. A Debt Free nation ransacked! Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but MOST are convinced intervention in Libya is ALL about Gaddafi's PLAN TO INTRODUCE THE GOLD DINAR, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth AND THE END of the western world trying to controlling the middle east.. "It's one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you're going to change over from the dollar to something else, you're going to be targeted," says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. "There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen." Source: http://www.RT.com/ Titled: 'Saving the world economy from Gaddafi'See more
Length: ?3:31..
from mumsnet
TandemJeremy - Member
Of course Gaddaffi had the right to put down armed rebellion by force - he was the legitimate and recognised leader of the country.
It was only armed rebellion after Gaddafi made it that
It was protests and demonstrations similar to others in the region until he freed prisoners, armed them and paid them to attack the protesters
More than that Yunki, war on Libya saved the Italian, and therefore European, banking system from collapsing.
[url= http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16055496 ]Libya Revolt Helped Stop Italy Bank Collapse[/url]
I think it is fairly conclusive that the countries which handed over prisoners to Col Gaddafi so that he could torture them (we're not allowed to do that sort of stuff) weren't bothered about the plight of people under Gaddafi.
[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/09/06/libya-david-cameron-orders-inquiry-into-claims-mi6-handed-over-terror-suspects-to-gaddafi-86908-23399862/ ]Libya: David Cameron orders inquiry into claims MI6 handed over terror suspects to Gaddafi[/url]
[i]"The move comes after papers suggesting close ties between MI6, the CIA and the Gaddafi regime were found in Tripoli".[/i]
British involvement in Libya was never at any time to do with saving civilian lives. It was to bomb the crap out of the country with complete disregard to loss of civilian lives, so that economic control could be established over the country.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/british-firms-libya-business ]British firms urged to 'pack suitcases' in rush for Libya business[/url]
It amazes me how some people here (and even more so in the US) never believe a word their government tells them, except when it comes to foreign policy, then they believe absolutely everything they're told. What's that all about ?
I've got a friend (Scottish raised Muslim) who is a professor at the University of Oman, and I asked him for his take on Libya after Gadaffi was killed and this is what he said
My take on the Libya sitauation has been against NATO intervention and thats because there was an alternative solution.One which was given little or no attention. It was a solution that entailed giving more time to ascertain whether the "imminent" massacre that was being portrayed in the corporate media was, in fact, a true representation of facts on the ground.There was, at the time of the passing of the security council resolution, very little evidence to support the idea. Also given the nature of the evidence that had been presented to justify a war on Iraq, any evidence presented should have been given the scrutiny that it obviously didnt get. The resulting resolution which was explicitly passed to "protect civillians" in the context of "humanitarian intervention", quickly became the "imperialist intervention" that it was designed to be, protecting the financial interests of western powers, and ensuring them a slice of the financial cake once Ghaddafi was eliminated from the equation.
What was interesting was that a few nations including India and China did abstain from the SC resoltion on those grounds (very little media space was given to the reasons why). They argued that there was very little evidence to support the claims being made and that, even if there was, there were alternatives to full scale military aggression.
One simple alternative being simple diplomacy and an attempt at a peaceful resolution to the internall problems of Libya. Of course there is the question of the hypocrisy. Bahrain being a prime example, and operation cast lead in Gaza being another. Both examples did not warrant any resoltution from the SC. Both were seen as "diplomatic" problems to be resolved by the "powerful elites" that were creating the problems. The other solution was support for the rebel elements from outside Libya entailing countries like Egypt and Tunisia taking a role in logistically and millitarily supporting the rebels.
Of course all of this assumes that the rebels and the TRNC are not just another bunch of western corporatist hell bent on streamlining the Libyan economy for a full on capitalist and neo-liberal assault.
As to the question of oppressive regimes. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel and ****stan should be next on the list then??????
I dont think there is any real question of support for democracy here. Its a question of resources and capital. The facts simply dont support that idea that the western powers and their stooges in the middle east could really cope with true democracy in the Middle East.The democratic election of HAMAS in the West Bank and the role that America and Israel played in trying to undermine and ultimately capitualte HAMAS testifies to the fact. Democracy in the middle east is really equated with "stability" and for all intents and purposes that means compliancy to the American corporate agenda for the region. A ring of compliant states that protect American and western oil interests.
I can send you links to any of the above if you want any further info
Morning, joined in late on this one and have not read all the posts but having been in Libya working for two years until Feb and since then worked providing local security for media teams here i thought i deserved an input. This trip from the 11th Oct i have covered Sirte, we travelled daily from Misurata and watched the destruction of Sirte, on Thursday the rumour Gadaffi was caught meant we travelled to the local dressing station to catch up with him, he was already en route to Misurata but we saw the lad with the golden gun etc. On Friday morning i took a chance and took the team to the barracks where he is now, by luck we got in to see him with a bunch of rebels at 1100, only 10 of us, really surreal anyway the whole point of letting the folk see him dead is to let them know it is a definate, the guy has led the country on fear, that fear is now going but they had to see him because alive even in a jail he had power and money to cause problems, yesterday they put the other two on show and they are stinking now to be honest. I and the other guys think it is wrong to have kids rocking up but you have to remember this guy killed thousands of Libyans over the last 42 yrs and this change is unbelievable to normal Libyans.
This is my fourth trip here with the media, i saw Misurata in April getting bombarded, not nice when a mortar lands 20m away from you and kills an 11 year old boy in front of you, i watched Zintan get gradded, i saw Zawahia and Tripoli fall and all the time this was happening he could have stopped it.
His family lived in luxury, the homes of his family and close thugs are in total contrast to normal Libyans who did not receive good health care, education etc etc, even normal Libyans would attempt to get health care in Tunisia, his body has just had an autopsy and is back in the fridge so we see what happens today.
You have to wonder how many Gadaffit Lookalikes there were in Libya, and also if the guy in the military uniform who is taking over the show will be any better.
There are only seven nations left in the world that are not borrowing from a Rothschild cartel bank
So we need to "bring democracy" to the Rothschilds?
An interesting analysis by your mate BenHouldsworth. Although I'm surprised that he doesn't mention the African Union's proposals for a peaceful resolution to the Libyan conflict. The AU peace plan was accepted by the Libyan government but rejected out of hand by the Western Powers. It included the following proposals :
* An immediate ceasefire
* The unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid
* Protection of foreign nationals
* A dialogue between the government and rebels on a political settlement
* The suspension of Nato airstrikes
I think it is fairly conclusive that the Western Powers weren't too bothered about civilian casualties, seeing them as merely the victims of collateral damage in a war which they were determined to win.
Although as your friend points out, there are all sorts of assumptions being made concerning the composition of the rebels and their motivations which doesn't appear to be based on any hard evidence. The truth is no one knows the true nature of rebel movement and where it will lead Libya. And when I say no one, I mean no one on here, no one in any of the Western governments involved, and no one even in the rebel leadership itself.
It is a measure of the lack of understanding of the situation that led to the gross miscalculation by British intelligence which resulted in two MI6 officers and six SAS soldiers being arrested by rebel fighters and thrown out of Libya back in March.
But we do however know some hard facts concerning some of those involved in the rebel movement. We know that Al-Qaeda are involved in the movement. We know that the rebel commander in charge when Tripoli fell has a long history within Al-Qaeda. We know that Al-Qaeda has long seen oil rich and wealthy Libya as an irresistible and potentially attainable prize. We know that much of the NTC was, until very recently, staunch supporters of Col Gaddafi. We know that the top commander of the rebels was murdered by individuals within the rebel movement. We know that the NTC has no control over the rebels in Misrata who operate quite independently. We know that human rights organisations have evidence of serious human rights violations by the rebels - the NTC fully accepts that, claiming it is beyond their control.
Of course we could just simply put our faith in our Western governments getting it right. The same Western governments who got it so wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same Western governments who financed and armed Osama bin Laden and built his training camps - because it seemed a really good idea at the time. The same Western governments who supplied arms to Saddam Hussein at precisely the same time as he was gassing Kurds. The same Western governments who unwaveringly supported Islamic Theocracies in the Middle East. The same Western governments who are driven by blind greed and have been proved to be so clueless so many times.
I don't know whether Woppit would describe the Daily Mail as a newspaper with a "Marxist-type axe to grind" 😉 but by far one of the best articles I've read concerning the dangerous and unpredictable game the West is playing in Libya is in that paper - it's well worth a read :
[url= http://www.****/debate/article-2029026/Libya-Tripoli-falling-moment-Islamic-extremists-prayed-for.html ]Why this is the moment Libya's Islamic extremists have prayed for[/url]
And just for the record, I'm not predicting what will happen in Libya - I have no idea. It might well turn out to become a model liberal democracy at peace with itself, I simply don't have a crystal ball. I'm just baffled why some people are so convinced, with complete certainty, that a movement which is led by Gaddafi's former henchmen, is backed by Al-Qaeda in Libya, and has carried out human rights violations including looting and summary executions, will establish a liberal democracy. And why they dismiss any suggestion that it's quite likely that they might not.
So to all of you who think somehow a liberal democracy will be formed in
libya.
In his speech on Sunday in Benghazi, NTC leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil...................
Mr Abdul Jalil said the new Libya would take Islamic law as its foundation. Interest for bank loans would be capped, he said, and restrictions on the number of wives Libyan men could take would be lifted.
The bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360
Thank god the good guys won and put a stop to Gaddafi's evil murdering ways. It's a victory for democracy.
The bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says.Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the victims - some of whom had their hands bound - died about a week ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360
Do you think someone somewhere knows what they are doing, I sure hope so.
Oh yes the western allies know what they are doing - turn Libya into a weakened divided country reliant on aid and help from outside so they can pick off the oil assets cheaply
Do you think someone somewhere knows what they are doing, I sure hope so.
Not really. I don't think any western government involved in Libya knows who they have been supporting and what the outcome will be. No doubt the temptation to attempt to create an indebted client state in a oil rich country which had a strong debt free economy was simply too much for Western powers to resist.
Also involvement in Libya was an attempt by the West to grab some initiative in a region in which the situation was out of control and in which they were rapidly loosing vital influence. The Arab Spring was fundamentally a rebellion by the people against Western imposed, and propped up, repressive regimes. By taking the side of the rebellion in Libya, a country which they had failed to dominate, the West was hoping to be seen less as the villains, and more as supporters of freedom and democracy. The jury's out on whether the strategy will work, I have my doubts - the West has a history of screwing up when it comes to foreign policy.
Nor is the NTC anywhere like in full control of the situation, that has been obvious for a long time. Basically no one knows what they are doing - not the Western governments, not the NTC, not the rebels themselves. Generally in a situation like that after a successful revolution, a reign of terror ensues. Hopefully Libya will be spared that, but it's far from certain that it will be.
With reference to the execution of prisoners by the rebels, anyone who has followed events in Libya beyond the narrow confines of our media, will know that human rights violations by the rebels has been reported throughout the rebellion - execution of government supporters in Benghazi was reported soon after the rebels took control. The only thing that's changed is that the BBC, ITN, etc, are now apparently willing to report them.
So Gaddafi's dead. Pity he wasn't attached to two pick up trucks and pulled apart.
Hora, I don't think anyone is mourning Gadaffi, the concerns that are being raised relate to how a debt free creditor nation with some of the best infrastructure, education, healthcare and womens rights in Africa(unesco words not mine), is now being offered 'loans' by the IMF for rebuilding.
As has already been mentioned, some of the first actions of the new government has been to implement aspects of Sharia law, the corner stone of any free 'Western' style democracy.
Time will tell but the separatist behaviour of the Misrata Brigade and the fact that most of the rebellion soldiers previously served Gadaffi, were trained in his torturous ways and have already killed leaders within their own ranks doesn't bode well in terms of getting the result the west hoped for.
Lets just see how the Libyans get on with themselves.
Apparently mrs Gaddafi has a personal wealth of $30billion.
After all we can't hold up Afghanistan or Iraq as models of our intervention can we?
You can practically see him sneering as he inserted those quote marks around that "liberation". This is not a "liberation", says Milne, no matter what the Libyans celebrating think. And why's that? Well, mostly it seems because it's supported by the West, but if we take him at face value, it's because there have been lots of deaths. Milne is right to point out that the rebels are not quite ideal liberators, following the Geneva convention. Undoubtedly many have committed war crimes. But Milne slips into apology for Gaddafi when he adds this:"These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own."
This is ridiculous. Nato has only multiplied deaths if you assume, as Milne clearly does, that these rebels have no legitimate fight with Colonel Gaddafi – they are just pawns of Nato. The Syrian comparison is telling: for Milne, the smaller number of deaths in Syria (so far) is argument for leaving President Assad in charge. Syrians are better off under Assad than Libyans are without Gaddafi, because they have not endured Western intervention.
Sound familiar?
Undoubtedly many have committed war crimes. But Milne slips into apology for Gaddafi when he adds this:
Unlike the Telegraph writer of course, who is making apologies for the rebel's war crimes. Also, who would have though the Telegraph would be so keen on installing a regime that wants Sharia law?
So Gaddafi's dead. Pity he wasn't attached to two pick up trucks and pulled apart.
He was sodomized with a bayonet before he died, is that better for you?
Unlike the Telegraph writer of course, who is making apologies for the rebel's war crimes
oh look
Undoubtedly many have committed war crimes.
So you think its acceptable for nato forces to kill many tens of thousands of people in a country that was peaceful befoer the nato intervention?
Unlike the Telegraph writer of course, who is making apologies for the rebel's war crimes
In civil war there are no rules. If our society broke down and we were fighting partisan fighters based in Derby and they had captured and machine-gunned 50 of our colleagues the week before and set fire to the rest would you capture, treat them well, hand out cigarettes and food?
Or would you shoot, push on and carry on advancing?
In World war II BOTH sides strayed into shades of grey.
Also, lets not forget the carpet bombing of civilians, women and children.
So, when someone who profited, slayed his countrymen/crushing opposition, killed innocents abroad gets pulled out of a drain and shot very quickly- what do you want me to do? Mourn him?
TandemJeremy - Member
So you think its acceptable for nato forces to kill many tens of thousands of people in a country that was peaceful befoer the nato intervention?
Lets remind ourselves of that "peace"
The rebels' leader has appealed to the international community to stop the pro-Gaddafi bombardment, but the government denies it is attacking.Reports suggest hundreds of cars packed with people were fleeing the city eastwards as fighting spread.
"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," rebel leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil told Al Jazeera television. "There will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the UN Security Council.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the world must "speak with one voice" on Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919
:facepalm:
oh look
That's exactly my point, but as you seem to be a little hard of thinking I'll spell it out for you. What is the purpose of his sentence 'undoubtedly many have committed war crimes' - other than to say, 'but that's ok because they're on our side'?
Try reading the comments on that article - even the Telegraph readers can see that it's utter rubbish.
So, when someone who profited, slayed his countrymen/crushing opposition, killed innocents abroad gets pulled out of a drain and shot very quickly- what do you want me to do? Mourn him?
Someone who also created the highest standards of living in Africa, but let's ignore that eh? Do you really not see the problem when we are supporting a rebellion in the name of human rights and democracy, that those we help install carry out summary executions and torture?
Whats a facepalm please?
[img] 
[/img]
Oh lordy I cannot believe you said that I am incredoulous with the stupidity of your comment. Words fail me etc
I am not following the this thread at all and am simply answering the question. I have no idea if it is deserved or not on here or even who it was said to
Does this sound familiar? Bit like the warning Gaddafi made to the residents of Benghazi that was apparently the reason we decided to intervene? What happens when the deadline comes - a massacre? I'm sure it's completely different of course, because they're the 'good guys'.
Libyan rebels said on Tuesday they are ready for the “final battle” of the six-month uprising by issuing an ultimatum to Gaddafi loyalists in Sirte to surrender by Saturday or face an all-out military assault.
mcboo - Member
Whats a facepalm please?
An internet cliche used when a poster wishes to make a witty comment but lacks the vocabulary and articulacy to do any more than 'copy and paste' 😆
Just love how people sat in warm cosy homes with no experience of war can say what and how people should behave in the heat of battle with lack of sleep and being fired at day in day out.
Lets not forget Gaddafi brought foreign mercenaries in to quell his people and had snipers firing.
Again, if it was here in the UK how would you feel?
When the chavs ran riot in a few UK cities this year how safe or scared did you feel?
An internet cliche used when a poster wishes to make a witty comment but lacks the vocabulary and articulacy to do any more than 'copy and paste'
Nice try, except I then went on to explain how he'd so spectacularly missed the point. Again.
Just love how people sat in warm cosy homes with no experience of war can say what and how people should behave in the heat of battle with lack of sleep and being fired at day in day out.
So by that token any atrocities committed by Gaddafi's troops were fine too because it was done in the heat of battle.
When the chavs ran riot in a few UK cities this year how safe or scared did you feel?
I was in central London when it broke out, can't say it bothered me too much - relevance?
[img] 
[/img]
An internet cliche used when a poster wishes to make a witty comment but lacks the vocabulary and articulacy to do any more than 'copy and paste'
a country that was peaceful befoer the nato intervention?
Teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!
hora - Member
Just love how people sat in warm cosy homes with no experience of war can say what and how people should behave in the heat of battle with lack of sleep and being fired at day in day out.
Oh shut up. I can say that summary executions are wrong, torture to attain confessions is wrong and bombarding a city while claiming to be protecting civilians is wrong.
Comparing the UK riots (which if you hadn't noticed wasn't 'chavs' it was people across the spectrum) to the war in Libya is utterly fatuous.
Comparing the UK riots (which if you hadn't noticed wasn't 'chavs' it was people across the spectrum) to the war in Libya is utterly fatuous.
+1
It's heartening to see that those from opposing ends of the political spectrum can come together and agree that hora is full of shit.
mcboo - not going to actually bother answering any of the points I've made? Thought not.
Eh well I hadnt noticed any points that appeared directed at me. Let me go back and have a look. Maybe TJ will show his face again.....he does go missing when the going gets tough.
Comparing the UK riots (which if you hadn't noticed wasn't 'chavs' it was people across the spectrum) to the war in Libya is utterly fatuous.
****ing hell. I was saying on a lower level here you were a wee bit scared/feeling unsecure and thats in a democratic country ffs.
In addition, they werent 'across the spectrum'. 40% were claiming benefits and an additional 20% were on incapacity or disabled benefit(s).
Within the age range analysis a large proportion were also under the age of 116/17.... So they wouldn't be classed as benefit claimants...yet.
The stats were published in the Independent (or Times?) earlier this week.
Grum, wind your neck in.
Edit...
"People across the spectrum": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8764809/London-rioters-had-average-15-previous-offences-figures-show.html
mcboo - not going to actually bother answering any of the points I've made? Thought not.
Do you really not see the problem when we are supporting a rebellion in the name of human rights and democracy, that those we help install carry out summary executions and torture?
This? Thats the excuse that the likes of Henry Kissinger and the rest of the realpolitik right in the US have always used to justify their support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. They plant the fear that OK, while he's a bastard, he's our bastard, the alternative is Al Queda and anarchy. If there is one thing that drives Arabs crazy its that and thats why liberals ought to be supporting the revolutions.
Each country is different, in Eqypt the army was key, they stuck together, refused to fire on the protestors so things flipped pretty quickly with much less loss of life. Libya was a different case, as is Syria.
So Grum, that's my point of view, I hope I sound like I have thought things through. You do like to shout at me, I'd really appreciate it if you would take it down a notch or two. Lets start with one notch. Fair enough?
In addition, the rioters were opportunistic losers. They were hardly tortured in dungeons or stopped from speaking their mind on politics.
hora - Member**** hell. I was saying on a lower level here you were a wee bit scared/feeling unsecure and thats in a democratic country ffs.
Was I?
hora - Member
In addition, the rioters were opportunistic losers. They were hardly tortured in dungeons or stopped from speaking their mind on politics.
So what's your point?
They plant the fear that OK, while he's a bastard, he's our bastard
I would argue the complete opposite - to me this is the argument of those supporting the rebels. While they are bastards, they're our bastards.
If there is one thing that drives Arabs crazy its that and thats why liberals ought to be supporting the revolutions.
I don't think you can generalise about what drives the Arabs crazy as if they are a homogenous group. I broadly support the 'arab spring' and hope it succeeds in bringing greater freedom for people in those countries, but I don't really see Libya as fitting into that movement very well. Given the history of British interference in Libya and elsewhere I would be very suspicious of any 'revolution' that gets the support of the British government.
So Grum, that's my point of view, I hope I sound like I have thought things through. You do like to shout at me, I'd really appreciate it if you would take it down a notch or two. Lets start with one notch. Fair enough?
That was a more reasonable and considered post, it just often seems like you are trolling though TBH - you make an inflammatory post, then don't bother to actually debate it.
Don't know. Given up. People sat behind PC's trying to say people on a battlefield should carry a code of conduct with them in a civil war is ridiculous.
Carry on- I imagine you also know all about deep sea diving and the answers to life.
Don't know.
No, you really don't.
hora - Member
Don't know. Given up. People sat behind PC's trying to say people on a battlefield should carry a code of conduct with them in a civil war is ridiculous.
Why?
Carry on- I imagine you also know all about deep sea diving and the answers to life.
What a strange leap of logic!
People sat behind PC's trying to say people on a battlefield should carry a code of conduct with them in a civil war is ridiculous.
It's called the Geneva Convention. All soldiers are versed in it.
It's called the Geneva Convention. All soldiers are versed in it.
They weren't soldiers.
They weren't soldiers.
Thats true.
Doesn't matter that they weren't soldiers. What they did would still be a crime under Libyan law, and if the new Libyan government is unable or unwilling to prosecute them for it, they could be tried by the ICC under the Rome Convention (my GF has a doctorate in international human rights law 😉 ).
hora - Member
People sat behind PC's trying to say people on a battlefield should carry a code of conduct with them in a civil war is ridiculous.
Bosnia?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87 ]This bloke?[/url]
Seumas Milne is the only commentator/opinion writer in the Guardian who's articles I bother reading. I read the Guardian most weekdays purely for its news content (although I quite like the letters page too) but I always look forward to Thursdays because Seumas Milne invariably hits the nail firmly on the head with his analysis. I don't reckon much more than a fag paper separates me and him politically.
So it's nice to see that Telegraph readers consider him significant and that he ruffles their feathers......thanks for the tip mcboo.
He openly describes himself as a Marxist.
Go for it Ernie!
He openly describes himself as a Marxist.
Does he, where has he done that ? .....or did you just make that up ? Have you ever read any article by Seumas Milne ? I think you'll find that he concentrates on political analysis and topical argument, rather than waste time claiming inconsequential political labels.
I seldom mention the fact that my views are Marxist, firstly it actually means surprisingly little in terms of accurately pinpointing someone's political stance. And secondly, it's quite pointless - you need to argue for what you believe in, rather than expect a label to do that for you. On the rare occasions that I apply a label to myself I generally describe myself as a Leninist, but that in itself throws up as many questions as answers.
No one wants to hear how you describe yourself - they'll judge for what you say and do. At least they should.
And this strategy is pretty much the norm for the non-sectarian left. Quote :
[i]"The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. "[/i]
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels
"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless"
Lenin
"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless"
It's fun to make up quotes and attribute them to someone we disagree with, isn't it mcboo ? The only limitation is the author's imagination.
And of course it excuses you from the tiresome task of having to provide an intellectual argument.
Like slapping a label on someone and expecting that to do all the work, it's quite a favourite with the intellectually bankrupt.
I take it that you can't back up your claim that Seumas Milne "openly describes himself as a Marxist" then ?..... it's just something you made up or heard someone else say ?
BTW, here's a couple of other people who's opinions concerning the current global crises, as well as Milne's, I agree with. Firstly there's George Magnus - senior economic adviser to the UBS Investment Bank, and [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3366527/George-Magnus-the-man-who-predicted-the-sub-prime-crisis-would-lead-to-recession-profile.html ]the man who predicted the sub-prime crisis would lead to recession[/url], according to the Daily Telegraph.
And secondly, Nouriel Roubini - economic advisor to the IMF, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank. Roubini predicted in 2006 that homeowners would default on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities would unravel worldwide and the global financial system would shudder to a halt, all this could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions. He was called [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17pessimist-t.html ]Dr Doom[/url] because of his dire predictions, which were dismissed as nonsense. Today he is hailed as a prophet.
But hang on a second.......George Magnus, senior economic adviser to the UBS Investment Bank, is openly Marxist :
[url= http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/give-marx-a-chance-to-save-the-world-economy-commentary-by-george-magnus.html ]Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy: George Magnus[/url]
And wait........Nouriel Roubini, economic advisor to the IMF, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank, is also openly Marxist :
[url= http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/233607/20111018/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-marx-karl-marx-financial-crisis-banks-banking-sector-capitalism-debt.htm?cid=2 ]Nouriel ‘Dr. Doom’ Roubini: Karl Marx Was Right[/url]
What do you say to that mcboo ......... have you got a made up quote you can throw at me ?
Ooof, tough round for mcboo he must have been praying for the bell
mcboo - you say you want to 'take it down a notch or two' and have a more reasonable debate - but then you just make trollish posts like this with no actual argument. 🙄
"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless"Lenin
That's an interesting description of what constitutes a "Communist", Ernie.
Are you saying that. as a "Communist", a person would support a workable form of Capitalism, if it enabled a good standard of living for all?
Would that standard of living need to be equal and homogenous?
Are you saying that. as a "Communist", a person would support a workable form of Capitalism, if it enabled a good standard of living for all?
Of course ! ...... well the most workable form of Capitalism, ultimately Capitalism isn't workable due to its inherent contradictions.
Those with a Trotskyite persuasion might have another opinion however. Their "idealogical purity" often requires them to take a sectarian stance which denounces such talk as "class collaboration" etc. But I'm all for class collaboration if it delivers results which favour ordinary working people, what is described as "immediate gains". I'm not a prisoner to my ideology, it's there as a tool to serve the best interests of society as a whole.
Interesting.
How would the decision be made about what is the most reasonable level of income expectation at the lowest level, given that the free market would not be allowed to operate?
mcboo - MemberMaybe TJ will show his face again.....he does go missing when the going gets tough.
Really? I just thought we had reached entrenched positions a while ago.
I simply think its wrong for us to go around killing people in far off places. its a simple moral stance.
Now you can argue "the end justifies the means" if you want for "wars" such as the overthrow of Gaddafi but given the tens of thousands at least that have died that looks rather spurious even if you were to believe it.
If you believe the end justifies the means then surely we should overthrow every oppressive dictator even if it means laying waste to the entire middle east. Plenty of targets.
So to go around killing people in far off countries is simply wrong to me. It takes a very compelling case to do so and in Libya we simply have no moral justification whatsoever.
For the end to justify the means you have to assume the end has been reached.
Excuse me for now and again just using short quotations rather than some huge dreary essay.
Ernie lets say for a minute Seamus Milne actually no longer describes himself as a Marxist. You do! And a Leninist!
That quote about Lenin is a very famous one, it's the cause of much argument on the hard left. Martin Amis gave Christopher Hitchens a hell of a time over it in his book on leftist apologists for communist atrocities Koba the Dread.
Simon Sebag Montifiore is very good on Lenin and Stalin too.
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/sebag_12_08.html
Is the Literary Review a good enough source for everyone? OK?
You do! And a Leninist!
😀 Shocking isn't it ?!!!
That quote about Lenin.....
Is cobblers. Tell me which publication of Lenin's work it comes from, I've read a fair amount by Lenin and don't recall it. Not that I would necessarily dispute the sentiments behind it - the execution of Tsar Nicholas** and his heirs was probably justified to limit the possibility of the revolution failing and the re-establishment of a hated feudal system, I just don't believe he said it.
There are countless examples of quotes being quite falsely attributed to people. One quote which is often attributed to Stalin is : [i]"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic"[/i]. I have used the quote myself on this forum purely for its entertainment value and the fact that the sentiment behind it is actually true, but there isn't a shred of evidence that Stalin ever said it.
People often make up quotes simply to discredit someone, although sometimes it is done for more innocuous reasons. Voltaire is often quoted as having said : [i]"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[/i], indeed it is often the only quote by Voltaire a person knows. And yet Voltaire never said it, rather it is what someone thought Voltaire [i]might[/i] have said, if he had, well ........ said it.
I think we need to concentrate on what a person has [i]actually[/i] said, rather than what we would have liked them to have said - it's only fair to them.
So anyway mcboo, enough about pointless false quotes ....... what do you reckon about economic advisers to the UBS Investment Bank, the IMF, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank, being openly Marxist ? And the fact that they predicted the global financial crises with startling accuracy ? You haven't given your opinion on that yet.
**Tsar Nicholas : [i]"Critics nicknamed him Bloody Nicholas because of the Khodynka Tragedy, Bloody Sunday, the anti-Semitic pogroms, his execution of political opponents, and his pursuit of military campaigns on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Under his rule, Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese War, including the almost total annihilation of the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. As head of state, he approved the Russian mobilization of August 1914, which marked the beginning of Russia's involvement in World War I, a war in which 3.3 million Russians would be killed. The unpopularity of the Russian involvement in this war is often cited as a leading cause of the fall of the Romanov dynasty less than three years later."[/i]
.......to quote Wikipedia
Yes the tsar was a bastard wasn't he, quite right he was kicked out in a revolution then shot without being tried.
Wait a minute......what's this thread called?
Oooooooooops. Thanks Ernie.
Wait a minute......what's this thread called?
Well this thread is called "Gaddafi's death", and as far as I can figure out you support the killing of Gaddafi. So what's the point you're trying to make - that you think the killing of Gaddafi was justified but the killing of Tsar Nicholas wasn't ? And why do you want to make that point ? Explain yourself - if you can. I suspect that you can't, and you're just playing some infantile 'point scoring' game.
And you still haven't answered my previous questions btw, ie, which publication of Lenin's work does that alleged quote come from, and what is your opinion concerning the economic advisers to the UBS Investment Bank, the IMF, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank, being openly Marxist ? .....easier to just ignore them ?
Well this thread is called "Gaddafi's death", and as far as I can figure out you support the killing of Gaddafi. So what's the point you're trying to make - that you think the killing of Gaddafi was justified but the killing of Tsar Nicholas wasn't ?
Nope - unlike you I oppose the death penalty in all instances. You however try and justify murder. Disgusting.
you're just playing some infantile 'point scoring' game.
Infantile. From a bedsit revolutionary. Ernie why dont you list your favourite communist countries, there's been a few, lets have say the top 5.
which publication of Lenin's work does that alleged quote come from"
Thats a quote of Lenin by Simon Sebag Montifiore - The Court of the Red Tsar. Send me your address, I will buy you a copy.
Here's another one, from a speech to the Second Congress of Soviets in 1917 - "How can you make a revolution without executions?" (M.Amis - "Koba the Dread. Laughter and the Twenty Million")
But my own personal favourite has to be this. In a letter to the Bolsheviks of Penza on 11 August 1918.
"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.
1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
2. Publish their names.
3. Seize all their grain from them.
4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: "they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks".
Telegraph receipt and implementation.
Yours, Lenin.
Find some truly hard people"[7]
That one is from "Lenin, A Biography" by Robert Service.
Listen to the bloodlust drip from every word. It led directly to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
And you think its clever to pose on here as a Leninist.
Oh and I had a look at those articles by the guy from UBS and Roubani. Both are saying "This much Marx was right about." How in god's name does that make them Marxists?
Anyway this is the last time I'm going to reply to one of your rants. You are an admirer of totalitarianism, or you are a troll. Either way, I'm a North London liberal.
unlike you I oppose the death penalty in all instances. You however try and justify murder. Disgusting.
So 6 pages into a thread, in which you have made countless contributions, and you suddenly announce that you are disgusted by the killing of Gaddafi ......execution is murder right ?
You should have made that point before mcboo, you gave every indication throughout this thread which is titled "Gaddafi's death", that you fully supported the actions of the rebels who killed him.
I suspect the truth is that you have simply changed your stance to suit a hole which you've dug yourself into. There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that were "disgusted" by the killing of Gaddafi from the onset.
For the record I am opposed to the death plenty, except [i]possibly[/i] in exceptional circumstances - I could [i]possibly[/i] be swayed in cases such as Hitler and Pol Pot. I am nevertheless fully aware that a 100 years ago it was pretty much the norm throughout the world, and I am not prepared to denounce a society solely on those grounds. At the time of the 1917 revolution Britain was executing soldiers by firing squad on trump charges to "boost morale", a clearly disgusting practice. I am not however prepared to denounce British Parliamentary Democracy solely on those grounds - are you surprised ?
Thats a quote of Lenin by Simon Sebag Montifiore - The Court of the Red Tsar.
So Lenin never wrote it anywhere ? .... how convenient. Lenin was a particularly keen writer who wrote and had published all of his political theories, I can assure you that if he believed the dictum "a revolution without firing squads is meaningless" he would have written it down somewhere - why would he not have? So in the absence of any evidence it's clear that your quote is false.
I had a look at those articles by the guy from UBS and Roubani. Both are saying "This much Marx was right about." How in god's name does that make them Marxists?
It's funny how declaring to the world "Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy" and "Karl Marx Was Right" isn't enough to convince you that someone is [i]openly Marxist[/i], and yet you are happy to denounce Seumas Milne for being [i]openly Marxist[/i] based on non-existent evidence - how does that work ?
Of course it's stupid to label someone as openly Marxist simply because they recognise that the basic fundamental principles behind Marx's critique of Capitalism are correct. But you are clearly happy to do that when it suits you, and not when it doesn't. You are quick to slap meaningless labels onto someone simply to satisfy your own personal political agenda.
....this is the last time I'm going to reply....
To be fair it's probably your best strategy, the alternative would be for you to grow up and offer convincing and carefully thought out arguments beyond just puerile point scoring. A challenging proposition for you no doubt, and one which you are unlikely to achieve overnight.
I can assure you that if he believed the dictum "a revolution without firing squads is meaningless" he would have written it down somewhere
Hmmm, hows about we make our own minds up about what Lenin believed - we can balance up the evidence of Ernie Lynch, against the evidence of Leon Trotsky, who funnily enough happened to be there at the time:
At Comrade Kamenief’s initiative the law introduced by Kerensky about the death penalty for soldiers was repealed. I no longer remember exactly where Kamenief made this motion; but probably in the Revolutionary Military Committee and apparently on the very morning of the 25th of October. I remember that it occurred in my presence and that I made no objections. Lenin was not yet there. It was evidently before his arrival in Smolny. When he learned of this first legislative act his anger knew no bounds. “That is madness,” he repeated.[b] “How can we accomplish a revolution without shooting? Do you think you can settle with your enemies if you disarm? What repressive measures have you then? Imprisonment? Who pays any attention to that in a time of bourgeois war when every party hopes for victory?” Kamenief tried to show that it was only a question of the repeal of the death penalty that Kerensky had introduced especially for deserting soldiers. But Lenin was not to be appeased. It was clear to him that this decree did not mean a cessation of the unheard of difficulties that we faced. “It is a mistake,” he repeated, “an inadmissible weakness. Pacifist illusion ...[/b]” He proposed changing the decree at once. We told him this would make an extraordinarily unfavorable impression. Finally some one said: “the best thing is to resort to shooting only when there is no other way.” And it was left at that.
And there are, pardon the expression, ‘revolutionaries’ who imagine we should complete the revolution in love and kindness. Yes? Where did they go to school? What do they understand by dictatorship? What will become of a dictatorship if one is a weakling?” We heard such tirades from him a dozen times a day and they were always aimed at some one among those present who was suspected of “pacifism.” Lenin let no opportunity pass, when they spoke in his presence of the revolution and the dictatorship, particularly if this happened at the meetings of the Council of People’s Commissars, or in the presence of the Left Social Revolutionaries or hesitating Communists, of remarking: “Where have we a dictatorship? Show it to me. It is confusion we have, but no dictatorship.” The word “confusion” he was very fond of. [b]“If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and white guardist, what sort of big revolution is that? Just see how the bourgeois pack writes about us in the press! Where is there a dictatorship here? Nothing but talk and confusion ...”[/b] These speeches expressed his actual feeling, but at the same time they had a twofold end:
Trotsky, 'Lenin' published 1925 Moscow 8)
Oh, how interesting... an alternative translation:
“If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and a White Guardist, what sort of Revolution is that? Nothing but talk and a bowl of mush
Versus
"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless"
Now ernie, I'd call that a pretty good paraphrase... But I'm afraid my Russian isn't quite up to spec to say if there's a particular dismissive emphasis in his words 😉
What happened to G was not right but what you have to understand that here in Libya the people will only finally loose the fear the Gadaffi name holds above them once they are dead, even if he or any of his familly went to the ICC and were jailed the people still know they had power and money to make their life hell, simillary now Saif Gadaffi is working out a deal because he know the Libyans will hunt him down and he will end up like his father.
The point of putting him on show was so that enough people could actually see him dead and spread the word, for my part i saw him the day after his death at 1100 and i think the dent on his head from a rifle butt did the deed, IMHO i also think Mottasom and Younis were shot at very close range as you could see powder burns on both of their wounds before they wrapped them up in a blanket.
People were driving from Benghazi to see him, not in salute but to make sure for themselves he was actually dead, very strange week indeed.