1 Jul 2011 01:02
Re: Oppose NATO bombing of Libya
<johnedmundson <at> paradise.net.nz>
2011-06-30 23:02:19 GMT
2011-06-30 23:02:19 GMT
====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ====================================================================== Eli wrote: "No doubt at least some of them will be there counter-demonstrating, thereby demonstrating their REAL support for the opposite demand - KEEP BOMBING LIBYA, although they won't have signs that are quite that obvious." Well it's reassuring to know that at least some leftists in the West are clear about this, because the Arab left are clearly just far too stupid and confused to understand: "Egyptian, Arab and international socialists and progressive forces met in Cairo 3-5 June, to discuss the future of the Arab revolutions in light of imperialism, Zionism and global capitalism ... Not only were democratic struggles supported as a tool in the struggle against imperialism, but, simultaneously, the Forum considered imperialism as a threat to democratic struggles. Almost all participants condemned the NATO intervention in Libya as a Western attempt to contain and control the Libyan revolution and, by extension, all the Arab revolutions. However, a representative of the Libyan February 17 coalition stated in the Forums opening session stated that, We dont see Western intervention as negative but as saving civilian lives. Libyans are fighting for freedom. Long live the Libyan revolution! The final declaration of the Forum asserted its firm support for the Libyan peoples revolution against the criminal Kadhafi regime. It also condemned the military imperialist intervention in Libya, justified by the barbaric confrontation of the Kadhafi regime of popular peaceful protests, calling for stopping this intervention immediately. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2011/debating-the-future-of-the-arab-revolutions-in-cai(Continue reading)
):
"This is sectarianism gone mad. So it's no matter what the signs of
those whom are not explicitly from the ANSWER coalition read. Your
preconceived narrative is that these groups are anti-anti-war. To turn a
phrase popularized by a really, really bad guy, this is equivalent to
claiming: "You're either with us, or you're against [the movement]." I
appreciate the united front tactic, but the when sectarians are running
the show, it's still sectarian."
If a group or groups want to have a "down with Gaddafi, support the rebels" demonstration, but still claim to
oppose NATO bombing (which not all on the left do, even nominally), they could do so any time, all by
themselves. But someone who counter-demonstrates at a demonstration whose ONE demand is STOP BOMBING
LIBYA is sending a very clear message to the world (including the media), which is that they do not support
that demand (just think about how it will play out on the TV news that night, assuming that it gets coverage -
"People for and against the war on Libya demonstrated today..."). And if one doesn't oppose bombing which
is actively going on, then one supports it, and supports imperialism, whether one admits it or not. I'm not
saying you "either with us or you're against (the move
ment)" as Adam says. I could care less where you are with respect to "the movement." No, I'm saying you either
against imperialism, or you're with it.
Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
RSS Feed