[Closed] Gaddafi's death

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 - Member

Maybe TJ will show his face again.....he does go missing when the going gets tough.

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.