jamahir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 28,132
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
You see @jamahir Turks support MB governments everywhere,they trained AQ and other radical Sunni gangs in Syria,gave them weapons and money and hosted their leaders in Turkey...destabilized Syria and now it's like "haha...what AQ? What Muslim Brotherhood?"
Of course that's what they did with NATO when they became friends with Russia and now are doing with Russia,becoming friends with NATO again. Israel was an evil oppressor,now look an honorable guest. UAE was a despicable arab traitor who supported "warlord Haftar",now a great investor and friend of Turkiye.
Constantly nagging about Morsi getting kicked,but going like "hahaha what Muslim Brotherhood?"
Supporting Sarraj in Libya,but going like "what Muslim Brotherhood,what is that?"
Supporting the MB in Syria and Gaza..."haha you guys are funny...Muslim Brotherhood hahaha"
That's absolutely true for Erdogan's Turks like Oublious. About Erdo's government hosting AQ leaders, one prominent one was the anti-Libyan-Jamahiriya criminal, Abdulhakim Belhaj who was the leader of pre-2011 LIFG group and then in 2011 that group merged with AQ and he became one of the leaders in AQ and then during the Libya war shifted his operations from Libya to Turkey to oversee the Syria war and was hosted by Erdogan. About your mention of Israel, we remember that "Gaza freedom flotilla" of 2010 but now, as you said an honorable guest and both happily harming Syria. Agree about the other things.
But there are also Turks who are against Erdogan's policies and in fact against his MB ideology. Right when the Syria war started there was a demonstration in Turkey by a leftist group called Progressive Lawyers Association and it called for an end to Erdo's support to anti-Syrian groups. And then in 2015 was the Ankara bombing in which 103 people died and 500 injured. The bombing was against a peace march that called for peace agreement with the PKK. One Turkish admirer of the Jamahiriya system whom I met on FB ( I had an account then ) told me that it was Erdogan's government which did it. And then there are the Turkish Communists and Socialists who again form another opposition front against Erdogan.
No TFX,no F-16Vs..."come kiss Turkish foot now,Mavi Vatan we strong go to Vienna"
I am saying go fantasy wiht your green book of qadafi funny guy someone else, keeps coming with fantasy. Ther is no end to talk wit troll, hindu aside and greece. Two different approach, both are trolling.
Fantasy ? Taking the Green Book as the guide the Libyan Jamahiriya existed in the real world for 36 years and that system is being implemented in Venezuela on the other side of the world so what's your objection to the Green Book ? I quote two sections :
PARLIAMENTS
Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.
To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a member keeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he, like other members, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. Immediately after winning the electors' votes the representative takes over the people's sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments - the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation in lieu of the people.
If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.
Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy.
Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.
After the successful establishment of the age of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority must be in the hands of all of the people.
The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.
Surely you see the sense in just these two sections.The final step is for the new socialist society to reach a stage in which profit and money disappear. Society will become fully productive; the material needs of society will be met. In this final stage, profit will disappear, as will the need for money.
The recognition of profit is an acknowledgment of exploitation, for profit has no limit. Attempts so far to limit profit by various means have been reformative, not radical, intending to prohibit exploitation of man by man. The final solution lies in eradicating profit, but because profit is the dynamic force behind the economic process, eliminating profit is not a matter of decree but, rather, an outcome of the evolving socialist process. This solution can be attained when the material satisfaction of the needs of society and its members is achieved. Work to increase profit will itself lead to its final eradication.