Franklin Lamb with Hizbollah leader, the late Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah
Franklin Lamb in today’s Counterpunch:
NATO’s bombs have united the people; forced the sometimes too comfortable population to face the future; even one without Gaddafi; demonstrated the media strikes with false stories are stronger than the military assault in some respects, shown that the “Arab system” i.e. Arab League is worthless; shown that it’s the poor people of Libya who believe in the Revolution and are remaining loyal to it. The rebels have exposed the Muslim Brotherhood as a US partner and also has shown the true nature of the Jihadists, Al Qaeda and NATO itself, that the African Union has a key function to perform, that Libya is not divisible because of its social and economic interdependency.
—
Franklin Lamb in Global Research interview:
“Hezbollah under the leadership of Hasan Nasrallah has given the Arabs of the region restored self-respect following 60 years of humiliation and 41 years of repeated and voracious occupation and aggression.”
full: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9328
—
Hezbollah lashed out Monday at the “crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime” in Libya:
“Anyone with honor and consciousness in this world cannot, and should not, keep silent on the massacres that the Gaddafi regime is committing across the country on a daily basis, namely in Benghazi.
Terror and violence do not protect a regime that was founded on corruption and crime, from the will and determination of a people that has taken its decisive decision,” a Hezbollah statement read.
“Hezbollah firmly condemns crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime against the oppressed Libyan people. We also offer our sincere condolences to the families of those who were unjustly killed, just for demanding their rights. Hezbollah expresses support to the revolutionists in Libya and we pray that they will triumph over this arrogant tyrant,” the statement added.
full: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=3411&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1
No doubt it must be a great relief for the oppressed people of Libya to be crushed instead by the Freedom Bombs of NATO. You see, it’s the thought that counts when the West takes action–invariably in resource rich lands–not the actual consequences for the Little People™ we’re so determined to “save”. “At least they mean well” is likely the last thing most Libyan’s under the NATO ordinance think before they’re atomized so there is some comfort in that.
Comment by Coldtype — June 29, 2011 @ 5:27 pm
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International haven’t found any proof to the claim that Qaddafi used rape:
http://www.frumforum.com/have-qaddafis-abuses-been-exaggerated
Comment by Jenny — June 29, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
Nice summing up of this whole quagmire here IMHO:
http://redioactive.blogspot.com/2011/06/libyan-rebels-are-nato-patsies-for-new.html
Comment by meltr — July 1, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
I’m seriously fucking embarrassed by progressives here in Canada, peddling a “soft” musclebound anti-imperialism.
Try to knock some sense into their darling little heads and it’s, “Ooo! You’re a pro-NATO warmonger!!” (same poo flung by the stalinists).
Comment by Todd — July 1, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
Regardless of what the leader of Hezbollah says against Gaddafi or Gaddafi might perhaps say against Hezbollah, there’s no contradiction in supporting Gaddafi against NATO and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah against Israel and pro-Western Lebanese.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 2, 2011 @ 10:04 am
“there’s no contradiction in supporting Gaddafi against NATO and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah against Israel”
That depends, you stalinist jackass: is Hezbollah committed to wiping out any vestige of democracy (including the crappy bourgeois stuff one of their supporters has)?
Comment by Todd — July 2, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
“What’s a soft musclebound anti-imperialism?”
It goes waaay beyond a muscular anti-imperialism to the point where it’s more a distorted caricature of strength.
I call it “soft” when it doesn’t overtly praise Gaddafi but instead chooses to ignore him in favour of a simple-minded critique of the imperialists or paints the (dictator) Gaddafi as the “lesser evil” compared to the (bourgeois democratic) imperialists. Democracy is a definite historical advance over a one-man dictatorship.
“NATO guns and bombs have not once supported democracy”
I _beg_ your pardon: I take it you feel people are better off under a dictatorship where they don’t even have the illusion of rights and ability to make some change? Those people who tried to challenge Gaddafi’s dictatorship were somehow misguided in wanting to have a say in their government?
Like it or not, NATO is getting rid of a bourgeois dictatorship (no doubt now in order to bring in a dictatorship of capital, but the dictatorship of a class, mediated through democratic means, is by far an improvement over the dictatorship of one bourgeois). This doesn’t abrogate them from responsibility for other atrocities and support for other dictators.
Comment by Todd — July 3, 2011 @ 3:28 am
There is nothing “democratic” about bourgeois-democratic imperialism if you happen to be one of the several billion people who don’t even have a nominal, formal say over the policies of those imperialist governments while those imperialists decide life-and-death issues for them.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 3, 2011 @ 5:58 am
“There is nothing ‘democratic’ about bourgeois-democratic imperialism”
If you’re living in one of the countries invaded by those imperialists, then, yes, you have no say.
You’re getting better, Aarons: instead of pro-Gaddafi drivel, you’re now writing commonplace observances. A step up for you.
Comment by Todd — July 3, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
Whitney, all you’re doing is mistaking your cynical posturing (including lumping Bahrain and Yemen, both states where bourgeois democracy is more advanced [not by a great deal], with Libya) for analysis.
Did you read my reply to you? You certainly didn’t answer the questions I posed.
“a US fomented civil war”
Wrong. Civil war had been in the offing in Iraq for a long time; the US certainly helped it along, but they aren’t the imaginary puppet-masters you seem to think they are.
“the price of subduing the insurgency”
So you think that dictatorships should be allowed, even helped along, so long as they hold their people as hostages? We should cheer on the bloody suppression of any insurgents for threatening to “rock the boat”?
“independent unions are banned [in Iraq] and at least a couple of dozen were killed for protesting against Maliki at the same time as Gaddafi was shooting his people.”
Isn’t this the same kind of argument Zionists use to deflect criticism of Israel: why don’t you protest against those bad people over there (and leave us alone)?
The Maliki government certainly deserves to fall and be replaced by something better, just as the dictatorship of Gaddafi does.
“Doesn’t look like ‘bourgeois democratic advances’ to me.”
While Hussein was in power, NOBODY was able, either de facto or de jure, to vote him out of office (like things are in, for example, Libya); like it or not, Maliki doesn’t have that kind of power (although I wouldn’t be too surprised if that sort of thing happened under him). That one single fact is an advance. It was bought at an inflated price but still worth it.
“NATO is, in fact, trying to kill the movement that existed for democracy in Libya by making it dependent upon NATO”
Which is why I wrote:
“no doubt now in order to bring in a dictatorship of capital”
but you evidently didn’t read that.
If Empire wants to get rid of a bourgeois dictatorship for its own reasons, that’s something thinking lefties should keep in mind. That doesn’t obligate us to believe what Empire says about anything; we have to examine the facts and go from there.
As a post-script, let me remind you that Marx himself set the template for this kind of intelligent observation of history, showing the blending of the good with the bad. Read what he had to say about capital, especially the parts where he contrasted it with what things were like _before_ the bourgeois had their revolutions. If you can read that and still believe that people were better off under feudal relations and conditions, I suggest you go back to your vegetable patch.
Comment by Todd — July 3, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
“Todd, you have yet to provide a single example of NATO or the US actually promoting democracy anywhere.”
Getting rid of Gaddafi, a dictator in the truest sense of the word, isn’t “promoting democracy”? I’d like to see your idea of what is.
“Bahrain and Yemen more advanced?”
Than what was going on in Libya, yes. Neither of them are as far advanced as, say, the US or Canada, but they are more advanced than dictatorial Libya.
“How about the dozens shot and killed in Bahrain during the clampdown?”
You seem to have this overly optimistic view of what constitutes democracy. Do you believe that democracy even exists?
“It seems to me that your only criteria for ‘more advanced’ is that they are backed by the west.”
No. Iran also falls into the category as more advanced a democracy than Libya, AFAICT. It still needs work, though, as its democracy is both theocratic and bourgeois.
“the US actively encouraged civil war to break down the nascent Sunni/Shiite alliance”
OK, I see that you’re talking about after the US invaded. I was referring to before.
“Let’s see who supports the builders of dictatorships.”
How about answering the questions.
As for your list of dictatorships, what’s your point? I agree (with exception of “Zionist colonialism”: if you’re referring to the state of Israel, it’s a democracy) with your list: these were all dictatorships supported by the West. How does listing them argue against Libya (another dictatorship that was certainly left alone by the West) being changed from a bourgeois dictatorship to what will likely be a bourgeois democracy? I’m not making some argument that, with democracy of any kind, every other problem goes away or becomes minimized enough to ignore safely.
“So, you see, the people you think are somehow going to liberate the people of Libya (by working with former regime figures who, only yesterday were repressing and torturing their own people) have never created democracy anywhere.”
Being able to vote out of power the most powerful political figure in the country isn’t democracy, or at least democratic? Now I’m _really_ curious as to just what you consider democracy to be.
As for your attempt to deflect away my point on Marx: I wasn’t talking about Britain in India. Kindly stick to the point.
Comment by Todd — July 3, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
“Getting rid of a dictator isn’t promoting democracy if the intention is to replace them with another dictatorship.”
Will this be a personal dictatorship, a la Gaddafi or Hussein, or will this be a class dictatorship? If it’s the former, you’d be right, and I suspect we’d see even more resistance at that time. However, if it’s the same deal as we have in Iraq or Afghanistan now, that would be an improvement than before, when people had _no_ political rights. For all that politics in Iraq and Afghanistan are dominated by open bribery and force, people have a chance where before they didn’t.
“So, Bahrain is a democracy of sorts, even though there is a king and they shot and killed dozens of pro-democracy protestors.”
Don’t be a fool. Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy which, as of 2007 IIRC, loosened up slightly its massive restrictions against democratic control, _but there still is some democratic input_. The people there are fighting for more democracy, same as in Libya.
“Yemen has had the same president for longer than Libya – but it is a more advanced democracy, though it too kills pro-democracy protestors.”
Yemeni democracy is characterized by plenty of intimidation and chicanery, reason enough for demanding more democracy.
As for your remarks on shooting protesters, I guess that means you don’t believe there is any democracy in Canada (Winnipeg General Strike) or the US (Kent State shootings) since democracy, for you, seems to require no violence on the part of the state.
(Funny and tragic: this is the exact same argument that I had over at Dawg’s Blawg, another Candian lefty who doesn’t believe democracy exists anywhere either.)
“But Libya – coincidentally, the one regime that the west presently doesn’t support – and you holler that it is beyond the pale, worse than the others, etc. etc.”
You learn your lesson well from the Zionists. I hadn’t seen you write a bunch of lies over at Lenin’s Tomb before, but I guess there’s a first time for everything, eh?
Kindly prove that I wrote the above.
“The only consistency is that you support western intervention”
You know me from Lenin’s Tomb: prove that I consistently support western intervention, here or there.
“You are simply an apologist for imperialism.”
>snort!< Like I said above: I’m seriously fucking embarrassed by progressives here in Canada.
"As for your questions, I didn’t answer them"
Well, thank God (or are you going to call me a religious zealot, too?) for small favours! Now I have a fair reason not to reply to your kneejerk stupidity.
Comment by Todd — July 3, 2011 @ 10:21 pm
Todd is one of those petty-bourgeois cretins who cares more for the trappings of formal “democracy” than for the real lives of real human beings, especially working-class and otherwise-oppressed-and-exploited human beings. Apparently, for him, the deaths of millions of Iraqis in the last 21 years, and the immiseration of most of the survivors, due to U.S.-led (and Zionist-instigated) wars and sanctions was okay, since it led to the replacement of a formerly-U.S.-backed unelected dictatorship with a corrupt, elected client regime. Todd is also apparently unconcerned with, and perhaps even happy with, the likely presence of long-term U.S. military bases in Iraq that can increase the threat from the U.S. to that part of the planet.
Personally, I’ll stick to Trotsky’s position of backing oppressed-nation dictatorships against imperialism — and against formally-democratic clients of imperialism — when they come into conflict.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 4, 2011 @ 11:33 pm
P.S. Todd may be too busy celebrating the slaveholders’ and genocidists’ Declaration of Independence today to bless us with another piece of imperialist apologetics for a few more hours. One can hope!
Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 4, 2011 @ 11:39 pm
“Todd is one of those petty-bourgeois cretins who cares more for the trappings of formal ‘democracy than for the real lives of real human beings”
Says the stalinist who worships a bourgeois dictator.
Try and explain how you, a person who isn’t interested in democracy _at all_, think you have even a modicum of a say here.
“the immiseration of most of the survivors, due to U.S.-led (and Zionist-instigated) wars and sanctions was okay, since it led to the replacement of a formerly-U.S.-backed unelected dictatorship with a corrupt, elected client regime.”
First, show me where I said all of the above was okay since it led to an elected regime. I double-dog dare you.
Second, are you referring to any particular Zionist-instigated wars, or do you believe that all US-led wars are Zionist instigated? Anti-racists would like to know . . . .
“Todd may be too busy celebrating the slaveholders’ and genocidists’ Declaration of Independence”
Nope.
Were you mourning how another “enlightened dictator” lost some sheep from his fold?
Comment by Todd — July 5, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
Socialist revolutionaries in a country like Libya fight for democracy and political space while being in the forefront of the military campaign against the imperialists. Socialist revolutionaries in the imperialist countries defend the rights of revolutionaries in countries like Libya to fight for democracy and political space and oppose all maneuvers by their own governments, in what-ever form or for what-ever reason, to intervene.
Comment by dave r — July 6, 2011 @ 9:43 pm
Todd @20 asks: “[...] are you referring to any particular Zionist-instigated wars, or do you believe that all US-led wars are Zionist instigated?”
I was referring to the wars and sanctions against Iraq since 1990. The Zionists also have enormous influence on other U.S. actions in relation to Arab and Muslim countries, including in inciting or implementing attacks on Arabs and Muslims inside the U.S.. In other matters, the policies pushed by Zionist Jewish capitalists are probably little different from those pushed by gentile capitalists with the same positions in the economy.
Todd also keeps calling me a ‘Stalinist’, although my position of supporting even repressive and reactionary regimes in the colonial world in their military conflicts with democratic imperialism is orthodox Trotskyism. Or does Todd consider Trotsky a ‘Stalinist’, too? Also, I’m curious what bourgeois dictator Todd is accusing me of worshipping.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 7, 2011 @ 9:54 am
dave, that’s a fine piece of thinking; I just wish reality would conform more often to something like it more often.
“Probably little different”, Aarons?
“orthodox Trotskyism.”
Orthodox Trotskyism, I would have imagined, would also urge the use of one’s brains when considering what to do in a given situation. The fact that you support a repressive bourgeois regime that has had little, if anything, to do with socialism or communism for about a decade (if not more) suggests you’re about as good a Trot as a nouveau neocon.
Comment by Todd — July 7, 2011 @ 11:31 am
“Also, I’m curious what bourgeois dictator Todd is accusing me of worshipping.”
Gaddafi
Comment by Todd — July 7, 2011 @ 1:50 pm
RedBedHead said:
“this from a guy who virulently promotes the neocon agenda of western bombs to deliver democracy”
Show me where I do that, or shut your lying mouth.
Comment by Todd — July 7, 2011 @ 3:31 pm
This discussion is becoming abusive, but that is not the reason I am closing it. It has become repetitious something I dread far more than abuse.
Comment by louisproyect — July 7, 2011 @ 3:40 pm