Thank you peace campers

by Anonymous Mon Feb 10, 2003 19:18

First of all though I am questioning your opinion and at the moment countering that opinion, I sincerely hope that your opinion is the right one!

Secondly, I again (as I have eluded to before), agree with your applaudits and join you in saluting the brilliant work by the people who ran the peace camp.

Like Pat C, I question did the direct action of the CWM actually have a negative impact on the anti-war movement. How can you be sure of this? There was no harm done to any person (except of course for the untruthful reporting of the incident, which would have negatively affected the public - though you cant really blame the CWM for this!)

Sometimes direct action like this brings more attention to the situation which is what we want.
As I've said before about news, you know what they say about it, "any news is good news".

Look at Michael Jackson there recently. Despite interational public uproar of his going on's with children, sales of all his albums are rocketing!! They had been is a slump before the programe. Who would have thought such adverse publicity on him would increase his sales.

I'm sure the financial issue was a problem to fight the legal battle, but surely "we" / the movement cannot give up as easy at that!?? If everyone had that attitude, sure we might as well just return to our jobs and our hum drum lives and give up on all humanitarian activity. Is George Bush and the might of America going to listen to us over here? One would think not, but we can't give up or give in.

Even if they weren't going to fight the legal case, I think they should have forcefully have let themselves been removed rather than voluntarily leaving. I would love to have seen the gardai and the army trying to man handle innocent protestors out of that camp. I think the images on tv would have been great and the media would have gobbled it up. It would have helped send the message into the publics mind - here we have innocent protestors, calling for peace and asking Ireland to do what we are already supposed to be doing, i.e. "neutral" - and the army and government (whom everyone "love"!)come down and stamp on them.

I would love to have seen that court case been fought. I'm sure every anti-war protestor in the country would have dipped into their pocket, and no doubt there are many rich ones out there as well. I certainly would have.

Again, the media attention would have been great. There could have been protests and vigils outside the court etc. etc.

The peace camps case was so strong. Whatever about the correctness of invading Iraq. There was no question regarding the peace camps argument. We are a neutral country and we were supporting and facilitating the build up of a massive military army.

Bertie and his cronies were up against the ropes. They could not "properly" counter-act this argument. Suddently they were just let off the hook. Like any boxer, once you have your opponent cornered you do not leave them out. I think we had em. An ongoing court case and protests etc. etc. would have futher driven the nail home.

Finally, I think the image of the Irish Army with guns etc. etc. facing down the peace protestors would have again sent out excellent images.

In any case what's done is done now. But the impact of direct action in general I think is a crucial one. Because obviously there is an infinite more bit of protesting to be done over all the world's problems. And it needs to be properly analysed if direct action works or not.

Down with George Bush & Imperialist America....

by pat c Sun Feb 09, 2003 18:06

" I am afraid that Pat C is living in his/her very own fantasy world if he/she believes that the Shannon stunt advanced the cause of the anti war campaign in Ireland, "

So, and uopu are living in the land of reason & light? You seem to think your opinions are laws of Nature.

Is it only your point of view which has any validity?

"far from being positive, it was a disaster for the campaign in the Mid West,"

Again, I'd like to see some proof of this. Maybe people you fancy the dollar & dont care if its dipped in blood are upset.

"Pat C’s practice of engaging in name calling is utterly childish, it does not alter my point of view and such behaviour is a classic example of avoiding reality."

You really are hysterical! You abuse the CWM, you abuse me & then you accuse me of name calling!

I have put a counter argument to your ramblings of course you are so lost in your own personal universe, only your opinion counts.

Solipsists of the World Unite!
You've nothing to lose but your dreams!

by Derek Thu Feb 06, 2003 23:05

Re your question, anonymous, the tremendous people who operated the peace camp had no choice given the “action” of the CWM whose stunt was an absolute present to the ruling elite in our country. The activists at the camp did not have the financial resources to carry on a legal battle against the state. I am afraid that Pat C is living in his/her very own fantasy world if he/she believes that the Shannon stunt advanced the cause of the anti war campaign in Ireland, far from being positive, it was a disaster for the campaign in the Mid West, Pat C’s practice of engaging in name calling is utterly childish, it does not alter my point of view and such behaviour is a classic example of avoiding reality.

by Anonymous Thu Feb 06, 2003 19:11

Thanks for your response.

Yes, obviously it was their choice. I'm just trying to examine if it was the right one. Especially as I think it was not.

Yes it certainly did raise awareness of what Shannon was being used for, and I think it went on to raise further awareness on the issue as a whole, and some of the real reasons for America's interest in this country and region.

I do not think the camp had reached a climax point where suddenly by staying there, they were now going to decrease awareness or more importantly turn awareness away from the Iraqi issue onto the camp.

The two are inter-related - the more coverage and attention the peace camp got, the more coverage the anti-war movement as a whole got.

Anyhow there's loads more to be done by all, so hopfully everyone will keep on "stroking".

by pat c Thu Feb 06, 2003 14:11

That was the choice of those who were involved in it. I'm agnostic on the issue. It raised awareness of the US using Shannon as a Warport.

But the actions of Mary & the CWM did that a lot better.

Different strokes for different folk.

by Anonymous Thu Feb 06, 2003 13:05

Do you think they made the right move to close down the peace camp?

by pat c Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:33

" However bashing bits off one U.S. transport aircraft did not advance the cause of the anti war campaign nor will such action do anything to save the life of one single Iraqi man, woman or child. Such “direct action” will not have the slightest effect on the ability of Bush/Blair to engage in a resource war."

Yes it will. One less plane is available. That much less supplies will bve del;ivered on time. If more planes were affected then a greater problem would be caused to the US war effort.

"On the contrary, the activities of the CWM were counterproductive, futile and have had a very negative effect on public opinion in the Mid West region."

Liar. You have no proof of this.

"They have also provided our “Government” with a PR bonanza and given the establishment media an opportunity to bash the anti war movement."

Far from it, they have in fact, raised the profile of the Anti War movement. The establishment media were already bashing peace campaigners as you well know.

"If the damage they have done to the cause of peace is to be overcome, we need a campaign that is well organised and co-ordinated; "

They have done no damage to the campaign. Who decides on what is well orgtanised? You?

"we do not need stunts, which give comfort and assistance to those who wish to collaborate with U.S. imperialism."

It is you and your ilk who are collaborating with US Imperialism. You launch your attack on those who have actually struck a tangible blow against US Imperialism.

There should be room in the Anti war MovementS for many views. But someone who stabs activists in the back, like you have done, is effevtively on the side of Bertie.

"In other words, we need a MASS CAMPAIGN, NOT A SERIES OF STUNTS BY INDIVIDUALS."

Yes we need a mass campaign. But it has to be built in a democratic manner. Not by Autocrats like you who wish to hand down a line.

This mass campaign could advance itself if thousands of people wre prepared to go over the fence.

by Derek Wed Feb 05, 2003 21:37

First of all Pat, I did not mention the term “violence”, I did not say that the CWM activists engaged in any violent acts against other human beings. I am aware that they were not charged with assault. However bashing bits off one U.S. transport aircraft did not advance the cause of the anti war campaign nor will such action do anything to save the life of one single Iraqi man, woman or child. Such “direct action” will not have the slightest effect on the ability of Bush/Blair to engage in a resource war. On the contrary, the activities of the CWM were counterproductive, futile and have had a very negative effect on public opinion in the Mid West region. They have also provided our “Government” with a PR bonanza and given the establishment media an opportunity to bash the anti war movement. If the damage they have done to the cause of peace is to be overcome, we need a campaign that is well organised and co-ordinated; we do not need stunts, which give comfort and assistance to those who wish to collaborate with U.S. imperialism. In other words, we need a MASS CAMPAIGN, NOT A SERIES OF STUNTS BY INDIVIDUALS.

by Anonymous Wed Feb 05, 2003 15:24

Many thanks Joe for giving some explanation of why ye took down the "structures" of the camp.

Could you maybe post this as a seperate news posting, with maybe a fuller explanation.

Also, could you explain exactly how your new strategy is going to work and how you expect it to be effective, and indeed more effective than what ye previously had been doing?

I totally commend the work ye have done. But I have to say I think ye have made a big mistake from my knowledge of the situation.

Though a lot of the media coverage may have been aimed at the camp, it helped bring the whole issue of the Irish governments attitude towards the war / the US, and the overall wrongness of this war and the horrificness of American foregin policy.

By you helping you bringing the issue onto the agenda, you helped anti-war speakers get on all types of media programmes. Both locally and nationally. From the written print, to the aural to the visual (tv etc.).

No doubt there would have been anit-war people on the media anyhow, but I think ye greatly increased their chances of getting on - the Late Late Show, Midnight Forum, Prime Time, the main RTE news bulletins - the extent of this media coverage I do not think would have been achieved without your help.

I remember after the Nice Treaty had been defeated. Many of the left wing parties that had helped made this defeat happen. Stood oustide the Dail the following day protesting to make sure the people's decision was upheld. Not only was this the biggest issue in Ireland, it was the biggest issue in Europe at the time. How many media journalists, networks etc. do you think attended the protest???????

The media coverage you generated on the "WHOLE" issue, one could not buy. In any case, I commend and thank you again for the work ye did, and no doubt will continue to do.

by pat c Wed Feb 05, 2003 12:27

How is damaging a plane violence? It prevents violence. The plane is no longer able to logistically support the US war effort. Even if this action saves just one life it is worth it.

There are many strands to the Anti War movement, it is not going to be built by the likes of Derek who seems to think his opinions are laws of nature.

The CWM, Mary & Eoin do not insist that everyone carry on the struggle in their manner. There are those of us who support them and those who oppose their methods in the Anti War Movement (which is a lot more than just the IAWM).

But those who condem,n them , call them violent & idiots are effectively on the side of the State.

by Joe Sheehan - Shannon Peace Camp Wed Feb 05, 2003 12:20

We are not closing down the peace camp, we are taking down the structures involved and we are going to keep up the work we originally intended doing, monitoring the use of the airport by the American forces and highlighting its use.

We are taking down the structures because the camp in itself has become a news story rsther than the War on Iraq, the use of Shannon airport and Irish complicity in this war. We felt that while the physical structure of the "peace camp" was there this was going to continue so it was decided to change our strategy.

WE HAVE NOT CLOSED THE PEACE CAMP WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN THE STRUCTURES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE AIRPORT AND HIGHLIGHT THE USE OF THE AIRPORT.

by Anonymous Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:34

I thought it was a big mistake to close the camp.

Bertie & Cowan will be sitting back feeling well chuffed with themselves.

The media coverage they had helped generated on the issue was exceptional.

Hopefully the peace camp will explain its exact reasons on this website very soon.

by kitty-kat Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:22

the "vandalism" committed by those acting out of conscience, willing to GO TO PRISON for what they believe in... do you think its a coincidence that the World Airlines decided to reroute their troop-carrying flights (35 -40% of of total throughput of troops) to frankfurt. no, wait, it must have been because of all those SWP papers that were being sold, or perhaps it was because they were really moved by the chanting and speakers. Ah, c'mon lads, they are neutral after all, we better switch to Frankfurt.
anyone who can be *put off* the anti-war movement based on the acts of what 6, 7 people, can't be too sincere in their concern for the Iraqi people. Hmm... which bandwagon shall i jump on next...?

by James McKenna Wed Feb 05, 2003 01:37

It's the ability to move like water around our stiff opponent that has and will continue to win the day for us.

Thanks to all who formed,were part of , helped and supported the Peace Camp.

I know we havnt seen the last of you good ones!

by Derek Wed Feb 05, 2003 00:55

No, the anti war campaign has not gone away but the peace camp has been dismantled thanks to the "direct action" of a group of idiots who could not have done a better job if they had been hired by the CIA. How any rational person could think that knocking bits off one transport aircraft could impede to the most minute degree, the forthcoming aggression against the people of Iraq is a mystery. The building of a mass movement against war is a slow painstaking process, there are no short cuts.

by Amanda Wed Feb 05, 2003 00:52

Most people are glad to see the back of the so called peace protestors. Their actions were an utter disgrace and they certainly reduced support for the anit-war argument. To thinks they could win support by committing vandalism on such a scale, how idiotic. The whole thing was one big failure.

by Intransigent Wed Feb 05, 2003 00:00

The IAWM has not disbanded...