[P2P-F] More on the Libyan Revolution: Lessons and False Lessons

Wed Aug 31 15:53:27 CEST 2011

Hi Amaia,

if you want more reputational benefit from your work, which I think should
be on all p2p-oriented revolutions or on the p2p aspects of the social
movements, you could always combine a personal blog, and we would republish
the occasional selection ...

just mentioning it as a possibility!

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hehe, I don't but I will google John Reed.
>
> Just before I met you I was going to start a Middle Eastern
> revolution/politics commentary blog so that I could do that. I reported
> almost live the Egyptian revolution on Facebook, Carvin style, except he is
> famous and has readership and I only annoyed most of my friends who didn't
> give a scheisse. Some people did privately praise me and encouraged me and
> asked me to do the blog. I guess my degree came in handy at the time of
> interpreting stuff (both social media and western mass
> media's inaccurate and biased reporting and most people feel very lost when
> it comes to Arab and/or Muslim stuff.
>
> On 31 August 2011 14:42, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>
>> absolutely Amaia,
>>
>> we can still rejoice for the people in lybia, even if people elsewhere
>> were not so lucky ...
>>
>> really great that you are following these things so closely,
>>
>> are you using a social bookmarking service, so that people can follow your
>> discoveries?
>>
>> I really hope you can continue to share this expertise, and become the
>> john reed of our times,
>>
>> if you know what I mean I'll be really impressed <g>
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos at googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Fair enough but so if you let Bahrainis die, you must also let Libyans do
>>> the same? (I know you are not saying that, I just mean that one thing does
>>> really not take from the other). I am heartbroken at what is happening with
>>> Bahrein, it makes my blood boil. I followed as closely.
>>>
>>> The fighters fighting in the streets are civilians, the "rebels" are
>>> mostly civilians, armed civilians yes but lawyers, and academics, and
>>> students, and bakers and unemployed, etc. Unarmed civilians have been
>>> staying home, shivering in fear and praying that those fighting the army and
>>> mercenaries will succeed. Women are there, super involved. I've seen videos
>>> of grandmothers cheering fighters and doing shooting celebratory rounds on
>>> video. Watch the video I linked to. It is 20 minutes and well done, very
>>> nice to watch.
>>>
>>> This is my passion and my "expertise" :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2011 13:56, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Amaia,
>>>>
>>>> This is really crying for a storify, again, I'm amazed and floored that
>>>> you have been able to follow all this ...
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm with you on the analysis. I think one's approach really
>>>> depends on which of two mixed feelings gets the upper hand
>>>>
>>>> 1) we care for the people and their evolution
>>>>
>>>> 2) we loathe European and U.S. imperialism and hypocrisy
>>>>
>>>> In this crisis, the two are really operating at the same time, but many
>>>> on the left are overwhelmed by feeling #2 and therefore forget about the
>>>> support for #1. No matter how much we dislike #2, there were, like in
>>>> Bosnia, not many alternatives for the Lybians except for asking external
>>>> support, and accepting where it came from.
>>>>
>>>> As you do, we can perfectly support one, be critical of two, and be
>>>> happy that they succeeded in these different circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what you say about the folly of Gadhafi is probably true, and
>>>> confirmed by recent discoveries in Tripoli, but on the other hand, the
>>>> repression in Bahrein has been equally atrocious, and it is occupied by a
>>>> foreign country, and yet, total silence; I think this shows enough the
>>>> duplicity of our own countries in their selective support; and we must have
>>>> no illusions on their motivations.
>>>>
>>>> I also believe non-violence was a very unrealistic choice in this
>>>> context. Nevertheless, I'm a bit surprised by the working class uprising and
>>>> have seen no visual evidence ... the city seemed always empty apart from a
>>>> few dozen fighters at any given time, and outside of Benghazi, the female
>>>> element seems completely absent from the public space.
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Amaia Arcos <
>>>> amaia.arcos at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kind of good article at times, except:
>>>>>
>>>>> *It was only when the rebellion took a more violent turn, however,
>>>>> that the revolution's progress was dramatically reversed and Qaddafi gave
>>>>> his infamous February 22 speech threatening massacres in rebel strongholds,
>>>>> which in turn, led to the United States and its NATO allies to enter the
>>>>> war.
>>>>> *
>>>>> NOT true. People were being shot at in Benghazi by military and yellow
>>>>> hat wearing mercenaries (there is video evidence and plenty of reports,
>>>>> which I saw and read the very first days of, indeed, very peaceful
>>>>> protesting). It was only then the protestors started attacking the military
>>>>> base, and they succeeded almost "miraculously" after they had the "help" of
>>>>> a suicide bombing by a normal citizen out of desperation, after a few days
>>>>> of cruel fighting, and yes, military members defecting the army. Some of
>>>>> which got burned alive when caught by loyal forces (following orders), there
>>>>> is also video of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, it was after Benghazi "liberated" itself that Gaddafi went on
>>>>> the surreal air offensive against Benghazi and advances to other towns, who
>>>>> were happy to join, which is when the "rebels" started to ask for
>>>>> international support and a no-fly zone. The international community (thanks
>>>>> France? :S) took WEEKS to respond to, I remember very well crying out of
>>>>> desperation. It was heartbreaking seeing no response for weeks despite the
>>>>> videos and the evidence coming out.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I saw this video http://vimeo.com/22197304 I loved it because it
>>>>> reported exactly like I had understood it from following closely in social
>>>>> media those very first few days and weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody in Tripoli was brave enough, understandably, right until the
>>>>> very end because they were terrified, the article greatly exaggerates the
>>>>> conquests of peaceful protesting the very first weeks. Some tried and got
>>>>> brutally repressed. That the will was there all over the country was
>>>>> obvious, which is why I never bought academic commentary trying to be clever
>>>>> and argue that the Senussi
>>>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/senussi.htm were
>>>>> starting a civil war (because of the reclaiming the old flag). The people in
>>>>> Benghazi were clearly not thinking along tribal lines and most of the rest
>>>>> of the country shared their aims.
>>>>>
>>>>> The brutality of the Libyan regime and the brutality against peaceful
>>>>> protestors made it very obvious to anyone that the man is absolutely insane,
>>>>> how this article claims that it could have been dealt with differently
>>>>> amazes me. The only way would have been to allow to be crushed and have
>>>>> public executions of anyone who had even looked in the direction of anyone
>>>>> who must have shown any subtle disagreement with the regime. So, no:
>>>>>  *
>>>>> *
>>>>> *However, insisting that the Libyan opposition "tried nonviolence and
>>>>> it didn't work" because peaceful protesters were killed and it did not
>>>>> succeed in toppling the regime after a few days of public demonstrations
>>>>> makes little sense, particularly since the armed struggle took more than six
>>>>> months.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Lofty, lofty. I say if it took 6 months, and the man is still deludedly
>>>>> thinking he will get out of it somehow, imagine the level of insanity being
>>>>> dealt with here. He was using masses of mercenaries from different African
>>>>> countries and Serbia and even Algeria so no allegiance to the people, like
>>>>> the military might end up feeling if things get very crazy. Youngsters who
>>>>> managed to escape from Gaddafi's army spoke of being shot at when trying to
>>>>> escape. It would have been the biggest massacre in every sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> That France went in because of commercial reasons in the end, that NATO
>>>>> and any western country (or not western for that reason) only use the
>>>>> humanitarian excuse to pursue their interests is not a secret to anyone, not
>>>>> even Libyans. They were very aware they would have to do deals, fine if it
>>>>> means freedom. And they are not uneducated fools who will get cheated like
>>>>> so many presume.
>>>>>
>>>>> The article also, sadly, has completely ignored the Transitional
>>>>> National Council and its members. Had it monitored its formation, their
>>>>> press releases, the way it reached consensus with all tribal leaders that
>>>>> were against Gaddafi right from the beginning in order to have legitimacy,
>>>>> how well they have coordinated and "sold" their managing of the situation is
>>>>> impressive to say the least. That they have managed to sell oil during the
>>>>> war and secure armament and funds from several countries is impressive. Have
>>>>> a look at the members profiles
>>>>> http://www.ntclibya.org/english/council-members/, and have a look at
>>>>> all their pledges. I am not glorifying anyone here, they are human and we
>>>>> will see, either way, pretty impressive under the circumstances they have
>>>>> operated in my opinion. To come up with patronising, old-school
>>>>> fear-mongering about the propensity for dictatorship and undemocratic
>>>>> behaviour is a bit unreal, especially with all the evidence to the contrary
>>>>> having been published online all along.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31 August 2011 12:40, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> > From: Tikkun/NSP (NETWORK OF SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES) <
>>>>> info at spiritualprogressives.org>
>>>>> > Date: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:49 AM
>>>>> > Subject: More on the Libyan Revolution: Lessons and False Lessons
>>>>> > To: Michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Lessons and False Lessons From Libya
>>>>> > Tuesday 30 August 2011
>>>>> > by: Stephen Zunes, Truthout | News Analysis
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Rebels celebrate outside Col. Moammar Qaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya
>>>>> compound in Tripoli, Libya, August 29, 2011. Residents returning to their
>>>>> homes have found that many have been heavily damaged by gunfire after they
>>>>> were used as fighting positions during the rebellion. (Photo: Tyler
>>>>> Hicks/The New York Times)
>>>>> > IF YOU PREFER TO READ THIS ON-LINE, please go to
>>>>> http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/stephen-zunes-on-lessons-from-the-libyan-revolution
>>>>> > The downfall of Muammar Qaddafi's regime is very good news,
>>>>> particularly for the people of Libya. However, it is critically important
>>>>> that the world not learn the wrong lessons from the dictator's overthrow.
>>>>> > It is certainly true that NATO played a critical role in disrupting
>>>>> the heavy weapons capability of the repressive Libyan regime and blocking
>>>>> its fuel and ammunition supplies through massive airstrikes and providing
>>>>> armaments and logistical support for the rebels. However, both the
>>>>> militaristic triumphalism of the pro-intervention hawks and the more cynical
>>>>> conspiracy mongering of some on the left ignore that this was indeed a
>>>>> popular revolution, which may have been able to succeed without NATO,
>>>>> particularly if the opposition had not focused primarily on the military
>>>>> strategy. Engaging in an armed struggle against the heavily armed despot
>>>>> essentially took on Qaddafi where he was strongest rather than taking
>>>>> greater advantage of where he was weakest - his lack of popular support.
>>>>> > There has been little attention paid to the fact that the reason the
>>>>> anti-Qaddafi rebels were able to unexpectedly march into Tripoli last
>>>>> weekend with so little resistance appears to have been a result of a massive
>>>>> and largely unarmed, civil insurrection which had erupted in neighborhoods
>>>>> throughout the city. Indeed, much of the city had already been liberated by
>>>>> the time the rebel columns entered and began mopping up the remaining
>>>>> pockets of pro-regime forces.
>>>>> > As Juan Cole noted in an August 22 interview on Democracy Now!, "the
>>>>> city had already overthrown the regime" by the time the rebels arrived. The
>>>>> University of Michigan professor observed how, "Beginning Saturday night,
>>>>> working-class districts rose up, in the hundreds of thousands and just threw
>>>>> off the regime." Similarly, Khaled Darwish's August 24 article in The New
>>>>> York Times describes how unarmed Tripolitanians rushed into the streets
>>>>> prior to the rebels entering the capital, blocked suspected snipers from
>>>>> apartment rooftops and sang and chanted over loudspeakers to mobilize the
>>>>> population against Qaddafi's regime
>>>>> > Though NATO helped direct the final pincer movement of the rebels as
>>>>> they approached the Libyan capital and continued to bomb government targets,
>>>>> Qaddafi's final collapse appears to have more closely resembled that of
>>>>> Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali than that of Saddam Hussein.
>>>>> > It should also be noted that the initial uprising against Qaddafi in
>>>>> February was overwhelmingly nonviolent. In less than a week, this unarmed
>>>>> insurrection had resulted in pro-democracy forces taking over most of the
>>>>> cities in the eastern part of the country, a number of key cities in the
>>>>> west and even some neighborhoods in Tripoli. It was also during this period
>>>>> when most of the resignations of cabinet members and other important aides
>>>>> of Qaddafi, Libyan ambassadors in foreign capitals and top military officers
>>>>> took place. Thousands of soldiers defected or refused to fire on crowds,
>>>>> despite threats of execution. It was only when the rebellion took a more
>>>>> violent turn, however, that the revolution's progress was dramatically
>>>>> reversed and Qaddafi gave his infamous February 22 speech threatening
>>>>> massacres in rebel strongholds, which in turn, led to the United States and
>>>>> its NATO allies to enter the war.
>>>>> > Indeed, it was only a week or so before Qaddafi's collapse that the
>>>>> armed rebels had succeeded in recapturing most of the territory that had
>>>>> originally been liberated by their unarmed counterparts six months earlier.
>>>>> > It can certainly be argued that, once the revolutionaries shifted to
>>>>> armed struggle, NATO air support proved critical in severely weakening
>>>>> Qaddafi's ability to counterattack and that Western arms and advisers were
>>>>> important in enabling rebel forces to make crucial gains in the northwestern
>>>>> part of the country prior to the final assault on Tripoli. At the same time,
>>>>> there is little question that foreign intervention in a country with a
>>>>> history of brutal foreign conquest, domination and subversion was
>>>>> successfully manipulated by Qaddafi to rally far more support to his side in
>>>>> his final months than would have been the case had he been faced with a
>>>>> largely nonviolent indigenous, civil insurrection. It isn't certain that the
>>>>> destruction of his military capabilities by the NATO strikes was more
>>>>> significant than the ways in which such Western intervention in the civil
>>>>> war enabled the besieged dictator to shore up what had been rapidly
>>>>> deteriorating support in Tripoli and other areas under government control.
>>>>> > I could achieve an outcome I desired in an interpersonal dispute by
>>>>> punching someone in the nose, but that doesn't mean that it, therefore,
>>>>> proved that my action was the only way to accomplish my goal. It's no secret
>>>>> that overbearing military force can eventually wear down an autocratic
>>>>> militarized regime, but - as the ouster of oppressive regimes in Egypt,
>>>>> Tunisia, the Philippines, Poland, Chile, Serbia, and scores of other
>>>>> countries through mass nonviolent action in recent years has indicated -
>>>>> there are ways of undermining a regime's pillars of support to the extent
>>>>> that it collapses under its own weight. Ultimately, a despot's power comes
>>>>> not from the armed forces under his command, but the willingness of a people
>>>>> to recognize his authority and obey his orders.
>>>>> > This is not to say that the largely nonviolent struggle launched in
>>>>> February would have achieved a quick and easy victory had they not turned to
>>>>> armed struggle with foreign support. The weakness of Libyan civil society,
>>>>> combined with the movement's questionable tactical decision to engage
>>>>> primarily in demonstrations rather than diversifying their methods of civil
>>>>> resistance, made them particularly vulnerable to the brutality of Qaddafi's
>>>>> foreign mercenaries and other forces. In addition, unlike the
>>>>> well-coordinated nonviolent anti-Mubarak campaign in Egypt, the Libyan
>>>>> opposition's campaign was largely spontaneous. However, insisting that the
>>>>> Libyan opposition "tried nonviolence and it didn't work" because peaceful
>>>>> protesters were killed and it did not succeed in toppling the regime after a
>>>>> few days of public demonstrations makes little sense, particularly since the
>>>>> armed struggle took more than six months. And it does not mean there were no
>>>>> other alternatives but to launch a civil war.
>>>>> > The estimated 13,000 additional deaths since the launching of the
>>>>> armed struggle and the widespread destruction of key segments of the
>>>>> country's infrastructure are not the only problems related to resorting to
>>>>> military means to oust Qaddafi.
>>>>> > One problem with an armed overthrow of a dictator, as opposed to a
>>>>> largely nonviolent overthrow of a dictator, is that you have lots of armed
>>>>> individuals who are now convinced that power comes from guns. The martial
>>>>> values and the strict military hierarchy inherent in armed struggle can
>>>>> become accepted as the norm, particularly if the military leaders of the
>>>>> rebellion become the political leaders of the nation, as is usually the
>>>>> case. Indeed, history has shown that countries in which dictatorships are
>>>>> overthrown by force of arms are far more likely to suffer from instability
>>>>> and/or slide into another dictatorship. By contrast, dictatorships
>>>>> overthrown in largely nonviolent insurrections almost always evolve into
>>>>> democracies within a few years.
>>>>> > Despite the large-scale NATO intervention in support of the
>>>>> anti-Qaddafi uprising, this has been a widely supported popular revolution
>>>>> from a broad cross section of society. Qaddafi's brutal and arbitrary
>>>>> 42-year rule had alienated the overwhelming majority of the Libyan people
>>>>> and his overthrow is understandably a cause of celebration throughout the
>>>>> country. Though the breadth of the opposition makes a democratic transition
>>>>> more likely than in some violent overthrows of other dictatorships, the risk
>>>>> that an undemocratic faction may force its way into power is still a real
>>>>> possibility. And given that the United States, France and Britain have
>>>>> proved themselves quite willing to continue supporting dictatorships
>>>>> elsewhere in the Arab world, there is no guarantee that the NATO powers
>>>>> would find such a scenario objectionable as long as a new dictatorship was
>>>>> seen as friendly to the West.
>>>>> > Another problem with the way Qaddafi was overthrown is the way in
>>>>> which NATO so blatantly went beyond the mandate provided by the United
>>>>> Nations Security Council to simply protect the civilian population through
>>>>> the establishment of a no-fly zone. Instead, NATO became an active
>>>>> participant in a civil war, providing arms, intelligence, advisers and
>>>>> conducting over 7,500 air and missile strikes against military and
>>>>> government facilities. Such abuse of the UN system will create even more
>>>>> skepticism regarding the implementation of the responsibility to protect
>>>>> should there really be an incipient genocide somewhere where foreign
>>>>> intervention may indeed be the only realistic option.
>>>>> > Furthermore, while it is certainly possible that Qaddafi would have
>>>>> continued to refuse to step down in any case, the NATO intervention
>>>>> emboldened the rebels to refuse offers by the regime for a provisional
>>>>> cease-fire and direct negotiations, thereby eliminating even the possibility
>>>>> of ending the bloodshed months earlier.
>>>>> > Indeed, there is good reason to question whether NATO's role in
>>>>> Qaddafi's removal was motivated by humanitarian concerns in the first place.
>>>>> For example, NATO intervention was initiated during the height of the savage
>>>>> repression of the nonviolent pro-democracy struggle in the Western-backed
>>>>> kingdom of Bahrain, yet US and British support for that autocratic Arab
>>>>> monarchy has continued as the hope for bringing freedom to that island
>>>>> nation was brutally crushed. And given the overwhelming bipartisan support
>>>>> in the United States for Israeli military campaigns in 2006 and 2008-09
>>>>> which, while only lasting a few weeks, succeeded in slaughtering more than
>>>>> 1,500 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, Washington's humanitarian claims
>>>>> for the Libyan intervention ring particularly hollow.
>>>>> > It's true that some of the leftist critiques of the NATO campaign
>>>>> were rather specious. For example, this was not simply a war for oil.
>>>>> Qaddafi had long ago opened his oil fields to the West, with Occidental, BP
>>>>> and ENI among the biggest beneficiaries. Relations between Big Oil and the
>>>>> Libyan regime were doing just fine and the NATO-backed war was highly
>>>>> disruptive to their interests.
>>>>> > Similarly, Libya under Qaddafi was hardly a progressive alternative
>>>>> to the right-wing Arab rulers favored by the West. Despite some impressive
>>>>> socialist initiatives early in Qaddafi's reign, which led Libya to
>>>>> impressive gains in health care, education, housing, and other needs, the
>>>>> past two decades had witnessed increased corruption, regional and tribal
>>>>> favoritism, capricious investment policies, an increasingly predatory
>>>>> bureaucracy and a degree of poverty and inadequate infrastructure
>>>>> inexcusable for a country of such vast potential wealth.
>>>>> > However, given the strong role of NATO in the uprising and the close
>>>>> ties developed with the military leaders of the revolution, it would be
>>>>> naïve to assume that the United States and other countries in the coalition
>>>>> won't try to assert their influence in the direction of post-Qaddafi Libya.
>>>>> One of the problems of armed revolutionary struggle compared to unarmed
>>>>> revolutionary struggle is the dependence upon foreign supporters, which can
>>>>> then be leveraged after victory. Given the debt and ongoing dependency some
>>>>> of the rebel leaders have developed with NATO countries in recent months, it
>>>>> would similarly be naïve to think that some of them wouldn't be willing to
>>>>> let this happen.
>>>>> > In summary, while Qaddafi's ouster is cause for celebration, it is
>>>>> critical that it not be interpreted as a vindication of Western military
>>>>> interventionism. Not only will the military side of the victory likely leave
>>>>> a problematic legacy, we should not deny agency to the many thousands of
>>>>> Libyans across regions, tribes and ideologies, who ultimately made victory
>>>>> possible through their refusal to continue their cooperation with an
>>>>> oppressive and illegitimate regime. It is ultimately a victory of the Libyan
>>>>> people. And they alone should determine their country's future.
>>>>> > Stephen Zunes is a contributing editor to Tikkun Magazine and
>>>>> professor of political science at University of San Francisco.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ________________________________
>>>>> >
>>>>> > web: www.spiritualprogressives.org
>>>>> > email: info at spiritualprogressives.org
>>>>> > Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ________________________________
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Copyright © 2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives®.
>>>>> > 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200
>>>>> > Berkeley, CA 94704
>>>>> > 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>>
>>>>> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> “We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans
>>>>> if we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce
>>>>> Chatwin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans if
>>> we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce Chatwin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans if
> we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce Chatwin
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110831/ca60e068/attachment.htm 