Peace Activist VS US Military Jet

by Isn't it Ironic Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:06

So the Peace Camp at Shannon and the Green Party support Mary Kelly? Do they know what exactly they are supporting?

Mary Kelly is to be honoured by the Continuity IRA support group, at the end of Jaunary. Radio Free Eireann in New York City, hosted by John McDonough, has announced that well known 'peace activist' Mary Kelly, will be the guest of honour at the annual dinner-dance of the Irish Natinal Freedom Committee in January. The INFC is the support group for the Continuity IRA based in New York and headed by McDonough. The proceeds from the event will go the Continuity IRA prisoners including Colm Murphy, the only person convicted in the Omagh bombing.

http://www.irishfreedom.net/intro.html

You will note from the website that Mary Kelly is being honored for her 'peace efforts'. Fair play to ya Mary.

You will note that irishfreedom.net state 'They acted, at that time, out of concern for what they believed to be a betrayal in the making of traditional Republican principles and values by the leadership of Provisional Sinn Fein in Ireland. History proved them right.'

Yep Mary, Omagh proved you right. 29 deaths plus that of a preganant women with twins. Well done on your 'Peace Efforts' Well done. How proud your fellow protesters at Shannon must be of you and indeed the Green Party.

Well done, enjoy the award cermony in America at the end of January. Shouldn't you be there already? Best of luck to the Shannon protesters. I support you, but not the principles of irishfreedom.net nor the people they wish to honor.

Well done once more Mary on your 'peace efforts' Its all so ironic really. Peace in Iraq is OK but not in Northern Ireland and certaintly not in Omagh.

by Adam Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:18

Mary appeared in court today. Despite the fact that she has been living in Shannon Town for some months now, the court would only give her bail on condition that she left the county of Clare by 6pm today and didn’t return (plus a whole load of other conditions). She refused to accept these conditions and so has been sent to Limerick prison. She will be back in court, this time in Tulla, next Wednesday

There will be a vigil outside the prison in Limerick at 9pm tomorrow (Thursday) evening. For details ring 086 160 3084.

The police witness in court today said that Aer Rainta’s initial estimate of the damage caused to the plane was that it was at least half a million dollars worth!

by Ray Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:26

The Irish National Freedom Committee supports Mary Kelly.
The INFC also support the CIRA.
Therefore Mary Kelly also supports the CIRA.

This is moronic reasoning of the highest order. Want some more examples?

The Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded a prize to David Trimble.
They also gave prizes to John Hume, Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Lech Walesa, and Theodore Roosevelt.
That means that Lech Walesa supports David Trimble, David Trimble supports Yasser Arafat, and both Teddy Roosevelt and War criminal Kissinger support Jimmy Carter.

we could keep going...
Elton John is a famous singer.
Elton John supports Luton Town football club.
Therefore Luton Town football club is a famous singer.

Is that clear enough for you, or should I explain it again using the Teletubbies?

by eamonn crudden Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:32

etc

by Daithi Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:35

Tom Lehrer: "Satire died the day Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize"

by eamonn Crudden Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:38

About when poetry died

by Patrick Goats Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:56

We are all so good at getting off the real issue. That being that Mary is being honored by supporters of the Continuity IRA.

Will Mary be accepting the reward?

Has Mary came out publically and said she does not wish to be associated with this group?

Questions unanswered. Facts speak for themselves.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 29, 2003 17:56

It is wonderful to see the building anti-war activity and how more of us are doing something to actually stop it. This sort of committed, principled direct action is worth thousands of letters, phonecalls and banners.

Fully in support of Mary's action. (If half of what I'm hearing about the CIRA from Mary's critics is true then I'm going to have to consider supporting them too.)

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 29, 2003 18:03

Did you not have time to read Ray's response?

The real issue here is that the USA is violating our national sovereignty and that our government is colluding with them. Mary has helped to prevent the delivery of munitions which will be used for the purpose of war: the killing and maiming of men, women and children. If, as you seem to imply from your criticism of the CIRA, you are against the harming of innocent people, then you will surely be in support of any action which prevents them from being killed.

Mary took just such an action. The result is that it is a little harder for the USA to attack the Iraqi people any more and also that it exposes the venality of our government and their lack of respect for the rule of law.

by A Tax Paying Irish Citizen Wed Jan 29, 2003 23:19

You have gone too far, everyone has a right to protest, everyone has a right to have their voice heard, no one has the right to cause criminal damage in doing so. I do not support a war on Iraq but you people do not represent me nor people like me. You call yourself a peace camp with Mary Kelly has the one of its founder members. What she did today was not in my opinion the action of a peace activist.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 29, 2003 23:40

Just saying that you're against the war isn't good enough. What are you actually doing to stop it? What is wrong with sabotaging a piece of machinery that is:
1. Here on Irish soil illegally?
2. Is used to help kill innocent children?

If you don't have an answer to either the "what are you doing?" or the "what's wrong with peaceful sabotage?" questions then it would be fair to suspect that you are not serious about preventing war.

Y'all have a nice day now.

by Ramsey Isak Thu Jan 30, 2003 00:10 Wales

If the Transport Minister had not seen fit to sell out the Irish Constitution for a few pieces of silver, there would have been no need for direct action. If the Minister refuses to uphold the Law of the Land, instead of digging himself in deeper by issuing permission in violation of the Constitution, then he has only himself to blame for the consequences when exasperated conscientious citizens do his job for him. Free Mary, Sack the Transport Minister!

by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace Thu Jan 30, 2003 00:32

I got a call at around 6am this morning about your wonderful action Mary. Congratulations!

Now THAT'S what I call 'waging peace'!!

by Willaim A Finnerty Thu Jan 30, 2003 00:50

Shame on you Mary.

And interetsing to hear about your support for the Irish terrorists. Bit of a hard neck you have to condem the Yanks when you support the Irish terrorists. How come Mary you never bothered to attack Gerry Adams and his comrades over the years when we all suffered. Remember his buddies shot Gerry Mc Cabe whilst he sat in a Car in Adare one morning guarding pension money?? I am well and truly sick of the Shannon peace gombeens at this stage. Whatever credibility you ever had is well and truly gone.

by dark and tanned and lovely Thu Jan 30, 2003 03:01

wow mary kelly is hot or is that a picture of the girl from ipanema?

tall and tanned and young and lovely

she can take a hammer to me anytime!!

ooohhhhhh! Im off to that vigil.......

by Well done Thu Jan 30, 2003 12:12

FAIR PLAY MARY.
Whatever her accused links it doesn't matter, it is a symbolic action showing to the world that our neutrality has been breached and that the majority of people are against this violation, don't shoot the messenger. The message has been sent, lets hope the world is listening and there will be more to come. The clock is counting down for innocent Iraqi people, we need more hammers and spraypaint devices and more brave "nutters" to carry them.
Bless those "crazy" people "nuts" enough to see the truth in this increasingly insane world, where a dictator in red white and blue can squeeze, peace,military might and power into the same sentence while his henchmen stand and hail him with every pathetic sentence uttered.
GO ALL YOU NUTTERS, WELL DONE, FAIR PLAY, HASTA LA VITTORIA SIEMPRE

by LordFlash - Citizen Thu Jan 30, 2003 15:02 Lord_Flash_ie at Yahoo dot co dot uk

While I disagree with the Peace campaign, I respect their standpoint and feel a viable opposition is critical to a healthy democracy.
But at what point has law ceased to apply to activists?
So it's okay to damage property when "YOU KNOW" you are correct? So this woman thinks she can decide where the law stops?
The law of the land protects both those who agree and disagree with you, the same law of the land is what respects your right to protest. Why don't you give it some respect back, it was not crafted to suit your whims individually, but to suit us all.
I think that the peace movement has been hobbled by the actions of one criminal.

by Alex - Young Fine Gael Thu Jan 30, 2003 16:14

Those of you who support that communist agitator should be ashaned of yourselves.

Wonder why no one in Shannon is the least bit interested in the 'Get Along Gang' out at Shannon?

If you want legitimate support from ordinary people in Ireland, perhaps you should distance yourselves from the head bangers!

by robby Thu Jan 30, 2003 18:03 rob_s57 at hotmail dot com Dungannon

Does anyone know what type of aircraft it was and what weapons it was armed with?

by yellowjacket Thu Jan 30, 2003 18:41

It was a Boeing 737 and unarmed.

by Des Thu Jan 30, 2003 20:47

Alex, why not carry out a sleep out for peace in O'Connell St. some of the yank forces when they pass by might throw some coins at you, which you could use to combat the massive homelessness problem in our country.

by Jim Conlon - none Thu Jan 30, 2003 21:47 jimconlon at msn dot com Middle Village, NY 11379 718 639 3680

It is naturally disappointing to see the protests against the US position on Iraq As one of the 50 million Irish connected people here in the US and being from Ireland myself, I wonder if those protesters at Shannon should not instead go up to the border and protest the continuing harrassment of the Catholics in the Ardoyne area and the continuing mayhem caused by the unionist bigots.
I also wonder about the Irish tourist industry already in the doldrums and the fact that you are now biting the hand of those who feed you.

by Sideshow Bob Thu Jan 30, 2003 23:02

You useless crusty smelly dole scrounging english cunts make me puke.

The US is Ireland's only international ally, and the only country that would step forward to help Ireland in a time of need

The US has fed and clothed this country for 200 years.

The US employs 90,000 Irish people in Ireland

The US has 500+ firms in Ireland

Why dont you protest at the suppression of the Iraqi people by Sadam Hussain ?

Why should I, a hard working taxpayer pay for you smelly crusty cunts, who are mostly english, to protest and collect dole which I pay for ?

Why should the Irish taxpayer now pay 500,000 for your criminal act of vandalism.

You smelly crusty dole cheating sumbags make me want to puke, your pathietic

Why don’t you get a job, and campaign for the many Irish homeless on the streets of Dublin, if your such do-gooders ?

by Sideshow Bob Thu Jan 30, 2003 23:08

Remember 9-11 crusty's ?

Remeber all those innocent people ?

I hope the US wipes those mudering muslim bastards off the face the planet.

Maybe then I can get some cheap petrol.

LET'S ROLL . . . . . . . . . .

by Historian Thu Jan 30, 2003 23:17

The US is Ireland's only international ally, and the only country that would step forward to help Ireland in a time of need
------------------------------------------------

Obviously from the language and lack of reasoning displayed in your posts you are one of those employed to mop up American urine in Shannon airport, so I'll go easy with you and explain it simply:

1.The Germans supplied most of the arms for 1916.
2.The US in conjunction with the UK had plans to invade Ireland from the North if we denied them overflights during WW2
3.The European Union has pumped billions into our economy. We have cheated the EU by allowing US companies to stamp "Manufactured in EU" on last-step assembled goods.
4. Irish workers and taxpayers get a worse deal than the rest of their European counterparts because the firms that employ them wouldn't be allowed in other European countries.

In short, the US isn't worth it. Our future lies in Europe.

Aside from all of that this war is wrong. The USA should be planning on paying reparations to the millions of Iraqi families that have had family members murdered and starved over the last 12 years.

Now, get back to beating your wife, dropping litter and breaking the rules of the road.

by Martin Curry Fri Jan 31, 2003 01:39

Mary Kelly will receive, in abstentia, the Michael Flannery award in Queens, New York, tonight. Flannery and his comrades were acquitted in the 1980s in U.S. federal court on charges of supplying weapons to the IRA. They admitted that they had in fact supplied weapons to Irish freedom fighters and that their only regret was that they could not do more. That Mary Kelly is a true anti-imperialist is shown by her recent actions. And the Irish National Freedom Committee in New York is to be congratulated on selecting Mary as it links Ireland's long struggle against imperialism with the struggle against the current version of imperialism.

by LordFlash - Citizen Fri Jan 31, 2003 16:58 Lord_Flash_ie at Yahoo dot co dot uk

Okay boys and girls, lets leave race aside for the moment, and also pasty slogans.
Roughly 3 times as many people were killed by Dictators/ Tyrannies than by war in the last century. So wars of liberation are worth while.
Iraq (or more Saddam and his ruling elite) have violated UN sanctions.
He has gassed his own people and his government is oppressive.
Now while nobody wants to bomb civilians, it's bound to happen in a war, letting people die in vain would be the waste.

Would any of you have argued against military resistance against the Nazis? Or the Military liberation of Europe? I hope not.
This may be a smaller tyranny, and further away, but still real for those under it.

Now war is not inevitable, but it has to remain a credable threat.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Jan 31, 2003 20:09

QUOTE:
Roughly 3 times as many people were killed by Dictators/ Tyrannies than by war in the last century.

Where do you get that figure from? Please list the wars, states, regimes etc. You sound like you know a lot. It's a very confident statement. I'd like to gain from your knowledge.

QUOTE:
So wars of liberation are worth while.

Sounds good, but what does it mean? If wars had been fought against all those dictators then the number of people killed in wars would increase. If it turned out that more people were killed in wars of liberation than by dictators would you then argue that dictators should be supported?

QUOTE:
Iraq (or more Saddam and his ruling elite) have violated UN sanctions.

And therefore what? As I'm sure you're aware the ongoing bombing of Iraq since 1991 has destroyed the civilian for providing infrastructure of water, electricity and medicine and food. The UN "Oil for Food" programs were insufficient to provide for the needs of the people of Iraq. This was admitted at least twice upon review of the Oil For Food program by the UN which twice revised upward the amount of oil that Iraq was entitled to sell in order to purchase humanitarian supplies. Apart from that what is your argument here? Are you suggesting that a country found to be in violation of UN sanctions ought to be open for bombing by any member of the UN? What does that imply for countries that are actually found to be in breach of those laws recognised by the UN that pertain to the invasion of other countries? Surely it implies that UN ought to be encouraging member states to be bombing the USA for the USA's invasion of Nicaragua which was condemned by a UN resolution? Or are you selective?

QUOTE:
He has gassed his own people and his government is oppressive.

I would completely agree that Saddam Hussein is an oppressive dictator who was put into power by the US government and I would completely support any move by the Iraqi people to free themselves from him or any other dictator. I wouldn't put it past him to have gassed "his own" people, however you may be interested to know that not only was this allegation known to the US while they were still supplying Hussein with the chemicals to do this, but that the claim has been challenged in an article published by an ex-CIA analyst who claims that the poisonings of the civilians was "collateral" of the war between Iran and Iraq (this was why the US was supporting Hussein at the time: to weaken Iran. They were aware of the use of mustard gas by Iraq against Iranian troops and were quite happy to continue supplying Hussein).

QUOTE:
Now while nobody wants to bomb civilians, it's bound to happen in a war,

It's not a question of "wanting" to kill anyone. It's a question of what one is willing to do in order to achieve some objective.

QUOTE:
letting people die in vain would be the waste.

The decision to die ought only to be taken by the people who are going to die. You don't have the right to kill them to "liberate" them from anyone. If they want to rise up and take the risk of being killed then you can support them with arms, food etc. In fact, you could even volunteer to join them in their war of liberation. The only situation in which you have a right to kill other people is in self-defense. You do not have that excuse here.

QUOTE:
Would any of you have argued against military resistance against the Nazis? Or the Military liberation of Europe? I hope not.

Given the leftwing, anarchist, socialist trend of many contributors here I think we can guess that most people would have been for military resistance against the NAZIs. All you have to do is to look at how anarchists and trotskyists fought to resist fascists in Spain (while Roosevelt was busy trying to stop the legal sale of munitions to the Republican government and Churchill was talking about how much he agreed with Franco and the British Navy was protecting Fascist troop landings and the Communists were busy shipping Spanish gold to Russia and crushing the revolution in order to appease Hitler). Or you could look at how the only resistance to the Fascists in Italy was from the left. etc. etc. There's a clear trend here: anarchists, leftists tend to oppose dictatorships and don't care if it's American dictatorship or Hussein dictatorship or USSR dictatorship. On the other hand "liberals" will typically support one dictatorship over another and are prepared to see millions of innocents die as long as they get to keep their wealth.

QUOTE:
This may be a smaller tyranny, and further away, but still real for those under it.

"Wise mouths in words of fools do oft themselves belie"!

QUOTE:
Now war is not inevitable, but it has to remain a credable threat.

Chomsky argues convincingly that one of the main reasons that the USA will continue this war regardless of other considerations is that in order to bully other countries it needs to maintain a _credible_ threat: do what we say or we'll bomb you.

Finally, the USA has used nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocents, has invaded hundreds of countries, supported and intiated many of the dictatorships in the world and is proposing to yet again violate international law by targetting the civilian infrastructure of Iraq. They are bad eggs Lord_Flash_ie and should not be supported. If you are serious in your desire to see justice and right then you should oppose the War on Iraq and start campaigning for support of Iraqi revolution.

by TAX PAYING IRISH CITIZEN Sat Feb 01, 2003 01:03

MARY KELLY DOES NOT DESERVE ANY AWARD FOR WHAT SHE DID. YOU ARE GLORFYING SOMEONE WHO HAS BROKEN THE LAW, SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO THAT. SHE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE SHE DID, BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH YOU WOULD GET FOR A TENT ON THE PROPERTY MARKET! I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND SITTING IN A CAMPSITE ALL DAY EVERYDAY FOR MY PRINCIPLES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF US HAVE TO WORK! WELL SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE TAXES DON'T THEY. I AM SICK TO DEATH OF LISTENING TO YOUR TRIPE, YOUR ANTI AMERICANISM AND YOUR ANTI ANTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. WOULD YOU MIND TAKING YOUR TENTS AND WIGWAMS AND CAMPING OUTSIDE DAIL EIREINN WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO ACUTALLY MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ACUTUALLY RESIDE. CAN YOU LEAVE US IN THE SHANNON REGION ALONE, WE RELY VERY HEAVILY ON TOURISM FOR OUR LIVLIHOODS OR DO YOU HAVE PROBLEM WITH THEM AS WELL?

by Concerned Sun Feb 02, 2003 00:11

Quote:

"Given the leftwing, anarchist, socialist trend of many contributors here I think we can guess that most people would have been for military resistance against the NAZIs. All you have to do is to look at how anarchists and trotskyists fought to resist fascists in Spain (while Roosevelt was busy trying to stop the legal sale of munitions to the Republican government and Churchill was talking about how much he agreed with Franco and the British Navy was protecting Fascist troop landings and the Communists were busy shipping Spanish gold to Russia and crushing the revolution in order to appease Hitler). Or you could look at how the only resistance to the Fascists in Italy was from the left. etc. etc. There's a clear trend here: anarchists, leftists tend to oppose dictatorships and don't care if it's American dictatorship or Hussein dictatorship or USSR dictatorship. On the other hand "liberals" will typically support one dictatorship over another and are prepared to see millions of innocents die as long as they get to keep their wealth."

The NAZIs were no more Right Wing than Stalin's Communists. This Idea that there is a difference is pushed by extremists on both ends of the spectrum who toss about red herrings to cover the trail of their misseries.

Socialism is a blight on Humanity that robs the individual of power in the name of the society. It's name is not important. It can be called Communisim, Fascisim, NAZIism or what ever but it's still the same thing. Even the Baa'th party of Iraq is in this group.

Protestors who oppose the use of force (or the threat of that force) to prevent the will of these dictatorial systems from gaining more power fail to bring forward any better ideas on how to do it.

Embargos and sanctions on Iraq have not worked and according to the "Complainers" they only make life worse for Iraqis.

Exagerated numbers are quoted as to the number of children dead in Iraq because of starvation despite an oil for food program but "sanctions must be lifted?"

Perhaps if we just ask nicely, Saddam will step down, Iraq will give up all prohibited weapons, Democracy will arrive in Iraq and all ethnic groups will be free to live in peace? I won't ask what the bookies give for odds on that. meanwhile Iraqis suffer and the world awaits the use of a nuclear bomb on a non combatant country.

As to American Dictatorship, give me a break. The united states is the most democratic county in the world. In many jurisdictions the dog catcher is elected. Representatives not facing non confidence motions often vote against the government. The President is elected (not chosen by birth like many heads of state) The press is as free as any in the world. And most often is very critical of the government.

Just because the people in the US back their government on the issue of anti-terrorim and how to handle Saddam Hussein does not make it a dictatorship.

Strangly people all over the world struggle to become American citizens... I guess people love dictatorships like that!

Europeans who have lived under Stalin or Hitler or Tito or ceausescu may know what dictatorships are.

Irish peace protestors that have lived in peace because of NATO, who's parents remained "neutral" when British and Canadian and Australian and New Zealand and American and Indian and South African and many others soldiers paid with their lives to keep NAZIism from spreading probably do not.

by Our American Friend - Jolly Ex-Patriot's League Sun Feb 02, 2003 05:31

LOL! The current one wasn't, he was SELECTED by the Supreme Court. Obviously you're not making very good use of the "free press".

by Bobshowside Sun Feb 02, 2003 12:45

"It was a 737 and unarmed"

IT was a C-40A (it might look like a BEEFED UP 737, but if you look at the specs, there's no comparison to what they do)

Unarmed...

Did YOU get a look inside the cargo hold?
Do you know what "CARGO" this plane was carring to Kuwait?

Or are you just psychic?

As for breaking the law...
As others have written
highlighting Mary's action and IGNORING the carnage visited upon the children women and men of Iraq and Afghanistan, allow me to offer a reasoned counterbalance.

Under the Irish Constitution, Hague Convention,
Geneva Convention and the Nurmemberg Charter the ongoing military ASSUALTS on the Afghans and Iraqis are entirely ILLEGAL.
The US-led military shouldn't be bombing innocent people, cutting off access to clean water, proper food and medicine. THAT's a WAR CRIME.

As for damaging equipment involved in a war.
let's not even go into how easy it is to morally defend that, or even international law.

Some of you are so brainwashed into WORSHIPPING THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY(as opposed to PEOPLE) that you automatically see property damage as a crime. in fact it is not always criminal. (otherwise firefighters couldn't break your door in a fire, and the cops could destroy criminal's weapons)

Let's look at the CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1991. (see link)

2.—(1) A person who WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE damages any property belonging to another, intending to damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence. (emphasis added)

See that bit in CAPITALS? LAWFUL EXCUSE
Section 6 of the SAME act defines that.

6. This section applies to—

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(c) if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question or, in the case of an offence under section 4, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to damage it, IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIMSELF OR ANOTHER or property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another and, at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence, he believed
(i) that he or that other or the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection, and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is HONESTLY HELD.

Emphasis added again.

So, according to our own law.
You can lawfully damage the property of another if you do so in an honest effort to save lives.
Preventing or deterring military cargo, most likely weapons or ammunition from getting to a brutal and ILLEGAL war would fit that criteria.
unless the state can somehow prove that Mary Kelly has been camping out by the airport, giving up her time, taken a brave step to breach security at risk of being shot or arrested but yet, SHE DOES NOT HONESTLY BELIEVE in what she did. That's the only argument open is that she did not honestly belive in what she did...

by Tim Sun Feb 02, 2003 15:11

I'm sure you'll all support a rise in your local taxes next year to pay for extra policing and for the damage done to the aircraft.

by LordFlash - Citizen Mon Feb 03, 2003 11:46 Lord_Flash_ie at Yahoo dot co dot uk

"anarchists, leftists tend to oppose dictatorships"
Bit like Cambodia, Soviet Union etc... And I have to say that the "anarchists and trotskyists fought to resist fascists in Spain" were every bit as nasty in their methods as the opposition.
They thought nothing of committing atrocities just like the Facists. Remember those poor draftees who were supposed to be in the Film Scipio Africanus? They were instead drafted into the Facist forces,... they were not too happy about this so they defected to the "Socialist, Anarchist, Communist" side,... where they were promptly all executed. No doubt they were all "spies".

"Where do you get that figure from?"
Sorry, I lost those figures on deaths from war/ oppression in the last century, but I got them from a BBC article last week. I assure you, they were genuine. Just think of all those lovely left wing reigmes in Cambodia and the Soviet Union for examples.

"the USA has used nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocents"
This action saved "hundreds of thousands" of Allied troops AND CIVILIANS who would have had to capture the Japanese mainland,... and most of Asia (which for the larger part was still in Japanese hands). Have a look at just how hard it was to capture Okinawa and you will understand just how much death there would have been.

"the US was supporting Hussein at the time"
Past wrongs don't need to be continued, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. And I won'd deny that the US behaves less than perfect, I just don't like the look of the alternatives to a western dominated world.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 03, 2003 19:12

Answer the points, back up your assertions with some facts and then I'll take you seriously. Cite references and sources for the controversial and unsupported statements that you make. Otherwise you're just lying to me and more importantly to yourself.

QUOTE:
"anarchists, leftists tend to oppose dictatorships"
Bit like Cambodia, Soviet Union etc...

Eh, yes, Lord Flash, that would be right. Anarchists and leftists tend to oppose dictatorships like Cambodia, Soviet Union etc. Exactly! Is there something you're trying to except make my points for me?

QUOTE:
And I have to say that the "anarchists and trotskyists fought to resist fascists in Spain" were every bit as nasty in their methods as the opposition.
They thought nothing of committing atrocities just like the Facists. Remember those poor draftees who were supposed to be in the Film Scipio Africanus? They were instead drafted into the Facist forces,... they were not too happy about this so they defected to the "Socialist, Anarchist, Communist" side,... where they were promptly all executed. No doubt they were all "spies".

I am unaware of the incident. Exactly by whom were they executed? I would fully agree that Anarchists and Trotskyists shot, bombed and executed Fascists during the Spanish Civil War. Note the last word of that sentence: it was "War". That's where people shoot, bomb and execute each other. The big difference between the two sides was that Anarchists and Trotskyists were doing it to achieve Freedom and Democracy and the Fascists were doing it to protect their wealth. If you can't see the moral difference then there's no point in us talking further.

QUOTE:
Sorry, I lost those figures on deaths from war/ oppression in the last century, but I got them from a BBC article last week. I assure you, they were genuine.
Just think of all those lovely left wing reigmes in Cambodia and the Soviet Union for examples.

Neither of which are supported by Anarchists who were executed in the Soviet Union and who notably condemned the Cambodian regime. One anarchist that has taken this subject seriously is Noam Chomsky who made a careful estimate of the numbers of people killed by "Capitalist" and "Communist" atrocities. (He also pointed out that the "free press" that you were banging on about in your last post is very keen to overplay the "Communist" atrocities and downplay the "Capitalist" ones and the "free press" then accused him of "supporting" the Cambodian dictatorships!). Here's the summary of what he said about this in 1977 "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."
(http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html)

Chomsky addresses specifically the idea that there is a "good" Western "capitalist" "democracy" which is opposed by "bad" "communist"/"islamic"/whatever other people in this essay which you should read:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-01/10chomsky.htm

"The picture has always been an extremely useful one. Renewed once again today, it allows us to erase completely the entire record of hideous atrocities compiled by "our side" in past years. After all, they count as nothing when compared with the ultimate evil of the enemy. However grand the crime, it was "necessary" to confront the forces of darkness, now finally recognized for what they were. With only the faintest of regrets, we can therefore turn to the fulfillment of our noble mission, [...] Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone."

QUOTE:
"the USA has used nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocents"
This action saved "hundreds of thousands" of Allied troops AND CIVILIANS who would have had to capture the Japanese mainland,... and most of Asia (which for the larger part was still in Japanese hands). Have a look at just how hard it was to capture Okinawa and you will understand just how much death there would have been.

This is a cynical distortion of history. Many historians accept that the Imperial Army was on the verge of surrender and that the A-bomb was used both in order to test it and in order to demonstrate a threat to the Soviet Union. Furthermore as I am sure you well know there were _two_ bombs dropped on the _civilians_ of Japan in the most highly crowded areas imaginable: cities. Your defense of this shows either a cynical naivete or a fundamentally corrupted soul.

QUOTE:
"the US was supporting Hussein at the time"
Past wrongs don't need to be continued, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes.

Agreed. However you seem to be intent on _not_ doing that. The mistake that has been made in the past is that ordinary people have gone along with the war-mongers and war-profiteers and accepted a pseudo-democracy. Those war-profiteers and "governments" have created instability and supported dictatorships of both the religious and secular variety around the world. The effects of supporting those regimes (such as the semi-fascist Saudi Arabia in return for oil) is the creation of terrorists that attack _us_ , the ordinary people. Now is the time to stop that and to only support democracy and movements of national liberation.

QUOTE:
And I won'd deny that the US behaves less than perfect, I just don't like the look of the alternatives to a western dominated world.

You're making a false choice: between the US-fascists and the non-US-fascists. Why not make a stand on the side of Democracy and Freedom and joing Anarchists and other left-libertarians in fighting for a new world. Otherwise you may as well prepare yourself for a lifetime of self-hatred, self-deception and complicity in genocide and murder.

It's your choice.

by Alan Mon Feb 03, 2003 21:41

Really. What a stupid thing to do. Surely the Irish, more than many other races, should be grateful for the support the US has given them over numerous years. What a great way to repay the yanks!

by American Tue Feb 04, 2003 01:27

concernd wrote:
As to American Dictatorship, give me a break. The united states is the most democratic county in the world.
In Democracy people vote on the laws, in Republics people vote for representatives. The US isn't anything like a democracy, never was, and doesn't claim to be. Switzerland is probably the most democratic country in the world: citizens can block acts of the federal representatives by a direct majority vote of the people.

In many jurisdictions the dog catcher is elected.
No dog catcher has ever been elected to the national government. I have never heard of a dog catcher being elected to a state government, not even in the most rural states. Moreover, it is universal practice to partition districts in such a way to dilute the effect of the votes of racial minorities. Ninety percent of the elections to the national government go to the candidate who has the most money to buy advertisements in the corporate owned new media.

Representatives not facing non confidence motions often vote against the government.

Non-confidence motions do not exist in the US system of government at any level. There are only two political parties that actually particpate in the national government. Elections that change the composition of the lower representative house occur every two years, for the upper house every six years. The typical lower house member supposedly represents over six hundred thousand people. Proportionally to the population, each upper house member supposedly represents 1.5 million people. I say supposedly, since it is clearly meaningless to talk about "representing" a group of people this large.

The President is elected (not chosen by birth like many heads of state.)

The US President is not elected. The population "votes" for the President, but this is nothing more than a drama show. Regardless of who the people "vote" for, the President is chosen by a group of 100 men called the "Electoral College." In the last "election," George Bush lost to Al Gore by over half a million votes. As I said before though, these votes do not decide who the President will be. After the highest court in the land forced the last state to stop counting the people's votes, the Electoral College appointed George Bush as President. He is widely seen as illegitimate by many Americans.

The press is as free as any in the world. And most often is very critical of the government.

The press in the US is overwhelmingly owned by a handful of hugely wealthy transnational corporations. In the US, businesses are allowed to influence politics by supporting and giving money to politicians. The same corporations that own the press and television media are the major financial political contributors. These corporations censor the information that they allow to be seen on the televisions and printed in the newspapers. In the last month, television corporations have refused to play anti-war commercial broadcasts which were legitimately paid for. The reason Americans seem out of touch with the world is because all the information in the newspapers and television is filtered by these corporations.

Just because the people in the US back their government on the issue of anti-terrorim and how to handle Saddam Hussein does not make it a dictatorship.
This is completely bogus. Public opinion for and against a war is split down the middle, with about 10% undecided. As I mentioned before, many
Americans think the current President, who lost the "election," is illegitimate.

Strangly people all over the world struggle to become American citizens... I guess people love dictatorships like that!
Hundreds of legal immigrants from Muslim countries are fleeing the United States for Canada. Read the articles on the Canada indymedia site. Immigrants who are not citizens do not have legal rights, and the government has begun to imprison them on nothing more than suspicion. My roomate from Bangladesh told me the other day: "People used to call America the land of opportunity, but it isn't true anymore."

by jmayler Thu Feb 06, 2003 23:26

most people are unable or as yet unprepered to strike, I suggest phoning in sick "sorry boss, i turned on the radio, heard about all the death and felt physically sick, it's just got worse all day"
It free's you up for a day of civil disobedience, they can't sack you, and the economic system takes a small hit.
spread the word people-
it can't be that hard to convince people to take the day off!