Monday, 24 October 2011

Regarding Qaddafi's death and the (succeeding) consequences of the Libyan situation

Regarding Qaddafi's death 
and the (succeeding) consequences of the Libyan situation

"I’m not ashamed to admit I’m writing this with tears in my eyes."

These are the first words said in a writeup regarding Qaddafi by James P. of the American Front. It somehow pleases methat despite the "hatred", of being demonized by the media, there are still people around the world paid respect to a man who, despite his contributions to Libyan society end up lynched and shot by a mob.

Sad isn't it that despite wanting him to put on trial or what they end up putting him killed "for the sake of democracy", while at the same time thinking that despite trying-hard means to put things in order will rather end up contrary to it-as most people would clamor for free electricity, good roads, good education and social services rather than be ruled by a mob, sponsored by vested interests scrambling for oil in a once-proud African country.

And although this person oppose some of his moves that seemed "anti-popular", Gaddafi somehow put forward what real self-determination was, and that was to make a "new" Libya willing to take the risk of getting intervened by outside powers such as England, France or the United States and its domestic puppets and turncoats-including taking a vow of sacrifice like himself, and his people end up as corpses blood flowing in Sirte or Misrata. And people would remember him much that they afford free electricity and a good literacy rate all despite the odds given especially as what we've seen lately.

In fact, this person remember reading a copy of a his "Green Book" when he was a student; and what this person had seen on that book is entirely a critique-assessment on what every society goes on and on-especially in regards to politics and culture. Especially that Qaddafi criticized "Democracy" and "Parliaments" as misrepresenting people and in favor of the elite. Yes, despite having different perspectives he agreed in his stance as I or we obviously sought elitists and not the masses who took decisions in it; worse having the fact that votes can be bought and falsified during elections and choices limited to the wishes of the few whilst letting the people choosing which is which.

And thus,
As we expect these things around us, of having Oligarchs, insufficient distribution of welfare in exchange for labour, is this "Democracy" preached by everyone? Having elections bought, sold, falsified? A "Democracy" ran by an elite and with vested interests whilst disregarding or reducing social justice into a mere sentiment? For sure most of us are greatly concerned or confused about this hell of a kind matter, especially to those who end up having a boycott out of it simply because of having a rotten system maintained with a hodge-podge of promises and pepper spray, of carrot and stick. After all, Qaddafi's writeup somehow showed an idea what Democracy should be and that is the rule of the people.

And with his and his people's deaths during the civil war, of the growing number of wounded casualties, bullets being spent, houses and buildings being bombed, of foreign intervention led by NATO, it all somehow justifies Mao Zedong's quote concerning war and peace, that:

"War is a continuation of politics, and there are at least two types: just (progressive) and unjust wars, which only serve bourgeois interests. While no one likes war, we must remain ready to wage just wars against imperialist agitations."

Weird to say so about it, but the fact is that the battle sponsored by the west was and is an example of an unjust wars only to serve someone else's interests. Iraq's people were killed for an obvious reason of pumping oil in it, and so is Libya's; "The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is caused by need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of one's needs by another." as what Qaddafi said in his book, and for sure entities willing to exploit Libyan oil are for sure realizing this quotation. NATO bombed houses as they need it in ousting Qaddafi, then oil companies go through exploiting oil in it-then selling it expensively for they need profits in it! So what's the essence of their "freedom" if they themselves not noticed that they are indirectly exploited by the west? I personally against atrocities made during Qaddafi's regime same as those being called "rats" but then to sum it all who's benefiting the conflict? Is it the people who kept on waving the flag of Idris? Will it inculcate plans and opportunities better than what Qaddafi did?

People someday will know that they will laugh at themselves and regret their actions. EDSA Revolution for instance, whose product is rampant poverty worse than the latter days of the Marcos regime and a system worsened by vested interests also made some people lay low and nearly regret what they've did to it;

But on the other hand more are willing to advance an idea greater than the man from Sirte did; and whether we like it or not, it will involve blood and iron as what Bismark said.

Condolences for the fallen, but Libya will never be the same, especially when people had: 

free electricity,
free great medical care,
interest free loans,
govt. paid 50% for purchase of a car,
govt gave newly married couples $50,000 to buy a house...

Everything to say that "Qaddafi was worth remembering."

We will continue the fight, which is also our Fight. 
To Victory or Death. Yours for the Resistance,

Paul S.