Military 'Shoot-to-Kill'-policy at Shannon ?

by MichaelX - Revolutionary Communist Group Mon Feb 17, 2003 02:35 mtse08028 at blueyonder dot co dot uk

Yah brainless bunch of cannon fodder, put down yer
macho comics and get the wee brain in gear before the keyboard gets engaged! That'll be the kind of opposition you prefer then- up at the oul' camp.
Soldier's! youse are just big mouthed tarts for the rich bastards that run your country.THINK!

by Malcolm Cuileog Mon Feb 17, 2003 04:28

These postings are very good arguments for a peoples army or have they really gone away?

by . Mon Feb 17, 2003 05:08

Is patriotism really following America and attacking those who try to stop the Irish government turning Ireland into a base for the US? Come on guys. Get with it. Don't just swallow what the government tells you. Be critical!!!

by Michael Smith Mon Feb 17, 2003 05:32

That site is not recognised as official by the Dept of defence and its agents. It is the opinions of free citizens of this state ,who have as much a right to air their views, right or wrong, as the rest of us..

by chris karma - anti fascist world hq Mon Feb 17, 2003 07:25 karmakats at yahoo dot com 515 Bush st NY NY 10009 USA 914 969-0942

proves that the "peace" people are as intolerant
as those they protest,"takes one to know one"
judge not lest ye be judged!

by Colin McIntyre Hunter Mon Feb 17, 2003 07:57 The United States

How is the peace movement close minded? Excuse me? Because it's following democratic and independent courses of action as opposed to following in line and doing whatever you're told to do? Even more, even worse, believing what you're told to believe.

They are talking about killing people. We're against that. There's nothing "oppressive" about that. Our opinion that we shouldn't be killing each other is "oppressive" to those that want to kill others, and even us?

Please. Get a clue.

On a side note, Congrats to all those that took place in the protests on the 15. Be that you live in the UK, the USA, Ireland - or even Japan. Thanks. We've made a lot of progress over the years. At the start of the Vietnam war, we American's couldn't even protest or raise dissent without having a hundred or so police to keep us from being lynched by our own people.

by John Beecher Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03

Immature son, Im old enough to be your father

by Brendan Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:38

Its perfectly allright for the protesters to have a forum for their veiws, yet its not OK for people an unofficial military message board? Who are the faschists now? Or are you just a faschist if you don't follow yer beliefs? Not every body on the message board are even members of the Defence Forces. Bad form from BlackPope who wroye his piece without backing it up with solid information. State sponsored? If you are going to argue, then don't make up propaganda and lies.

by Seanin Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:49

Do people when they read those posts think that the posters were serious? Come on! Making a krusty kebab on the O' Connell street spike! Will you ever be able to past the spike without fearing for your life?! Get a sense of humour lads, if you actually checked out the site you would see loads of people standing up for the anti-war protests, as well as much leg pulling, humour and camraderie. Mind you while your talking about protecting innocent citizens of the state, how come you weren't complaining when you attacked the Gardaí on Mayday? Yeah, I know what went on their, so there's no point in lying about it.

by Chekov - WSM Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:08

Brendan, nobody is complaining about the fact that the soldiers have a forum, people are complaining about the opinions that they express in that forum.

Do you think it's okay that several members of our armed forces openly express their desires to murder citizens of the country on an official website which is monitered by the "top brass"? Can you see why people might think that this could be an indication of a fascist mentatlity within the armed forces?

by Omar Bradley Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:37

The site in question is about as official as a three euro coin.

by Peace Campaigner Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:38

These comments from the military forum clearly show the true colours of the State. They are
very unlikely to charge any of these people, but on the anti-war side, we know that they
have already banned people from entering Shannon Airport and others from even entering Co. Clare
for the crime of drawing attention to this war and promoting peace.

It is from people like this that the State depends on to carry out it's ultimate actions and
that is to murder the likes of you and me.

Just notice the way all their comments are simply full of hate statements and other incitements
and plain racism. They feel ever so powerful because they can use a gun.

by Joe King - The Pro improving my bank balance movement Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:39

How do you know all the posts were made by soliders? Any one can post on the site such as Eoin Dubsky, does that make him a solider?

I've just posted here, does that make me a left wing support?

by LordFlash - Citizen Mon Feb 17, 2003 15:19

God almighty, common sence shows that nobody is going to get up on horses with lances and armour(like 100 years) and charge at the peace protesters.
Really, you should focus on real issues (as some of you do) as opposed to picking on some soldiers and civilians who are only having a laugh at your expense.
As a board user I know for a fact that we engage in leg pulling and venting steam all the time. At the end of the day, despite many of who disagree and agree with the Peace protesters, the military is full of men and women who are prepared to put themselves in danger for you, in Britain they manned the green goddesses when the firemen were on strike and in Ireland they are there to help in search and rescue. They don't ask what your political persuasion is before they help you, and they don't ask for thanks for doing their job (a thankless and poorly paid one at that).
And despite the postings above, have any of you examples of them exceeding their mandate? Have any of them behaved incorrectly?

I'll leave you with an extract from my own posting from the 5th feb - which I see you did not include (in responce to "Bob's" posting publicised above)
:
"I assume he's just joking,... I'd like to think that each and every one of us would do our best to remain disiplined and professional,... bit like how the soldiers remained calm and in line in the film ZULU,... except of course WITHOUT the gunning the Zulu's/ protestors down."

I highlighted the "without" so it would not be missed.
I do go on to compare the protesters to a rabble, but then thats another issue.

Free speach is for everyone.

by BlackPope Mon Feb 17, 2003 18:08

For those of you who would trivialise this incitement to mere "Harmless Banter" or "Leg-Pulling" please note:
Fantasizing about the deed is the first step towards pre-meditated murder. Publishing those thoughts to gauge the level of support amongst potential accessories is the second, and the (probable non)reaction of the State to this blatant provocation the final indication to the would-be perpetrator(s) that a cover-up of the aftermath can be relied upon.

It is essentially the exact same kind of 'harmless banter' the Paras will have engaged in prior to 'sticking the boot in' on Bloody Sunday - i.e. neither Banter nor Harmless.

It is to be strongly assumed, if only due to their generally atrocious spelling, that the posters on the FFI-Board are mostly Soldiers - they all give their Rank and a fairly convincing impression of being what they say. Even if this is not 100% the case, the argument remains valid that this is a criminal incitement to murder, as the law presumably applies to all citizens equally, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to stuff themselves inside a uniform and carry weapons for reasons of state.

This case is all the more acute due to the fact that these characters are armed and likely to be confronting protestors in the near future, as Bertrude's intransigence shows little sign of abating in the near future without the ante of political pressure on the ground being significantly upped.

There will then come a moment of truth for the Army. I would have liked to think that the Soldiers of Ireland would sooner side with the People than with the Lickspittle Lackey of murderous Foreign Powers, and so was quite shocked to see the level of proto-fascist thought their discussion-board is awash with. This must be part of the entry-requirement to join NATO, I suppose.

The suggestion to proceed legally should be taken seriously, in defence of the laws as they stand and as a precaution against the RUC-type behaviour that has been proposed. If any organisation or person has means and a strong inclination to help with this, please mail me.

PS: The posters on FFI are State-Sponsored to the extent that they are drawing their money from the State and presumably spewing this invective during working hours, when they should be engaged in repelling Invaders and Foreign Military from the country.

by Legal Eagle Mon Feb 17, 2003 18:34

There are a number of reasons why legal action would be unsuccessful.

1. The idenities of the posters would be hard to confirm

2. To identify posters would who need the co-operation of the website owners for IP addresses etc. Not likely

3. Posts can be made to disappear, thereby evidence disappears. If you store these pages on your PC then the defendants can claim that you may have edited them.

4. This site not endorsed by anyone so co-operation from within the govt departments will not happen

5. Posters can deny they posted these comments and could claim their account was breached.

These would be the main weakness that come to mind I will post more as I give it further thought

by LordFlash Mon Feb 17, 2003 18:42

So "thoughts" should be policed now, as you mention them yourself as the first step to premeditated murder?
Some posters mentioned that they had friends and family at the protests, if they thought that there was a real danger from troops being deployed, surely they would have raised the alarm?
I myself know some friends who have been out to Shannon, surely if there was grave danger to them I too would have raised the alarm?
Or perhaps they and I myself quite rightly believe that there was, and is no danger?
But then again, none of us are "looking" for a crusade, and it looks like you have found your own little personal crusade!
Perhaps you should remember that the military is under civilian control and that it's personel come from the same communities as your camp come from.
None of the Paras or RUC that you are fond of mentioning come from the communities where they wreaked havoc!
Grow up!!

by Gay Soldier Mon Feb 17, 2003 18:51

I know all the lads that post on that site and we're all just having a laff. We're actually all repressed homosexuals and are dying to appear manly and macho. There's nothing wrong with expressing your desire to murder is there? That's why I joined the army, because I'm a thick c*nt and I don't understand anything.

Also, I'm unpatriotic and a traitor to the constitution (which I don't know anything about nyway coz I can't read).

by john - united states army Mon Feb 17, 2003 19:45

It's a just war, say Iraq's exiles
By Adam Lusher and Fiona Govan
(Filed: 16/02/2003)

Iraqi exiles in Britain yesterday condemned the anti-war march and warned that it would make it easier for Saddam Hussein to continue massacring his own people.
As hundreds of exiles, many of them with first-hand experience of Saddam Hussein's brutality, prepared to stage their own counter-demonstration in London today, many spoke with anger as they watched the peace protesters pour through the streets of London.
Some of the strongest feelings were expressed at a house in Shepherd's Bush, west London, where a group of exiles from Basra in southern Iraq gathered to view television coverage of the anti-war demonstration.
As his sister Nibal, 43, prepared the chicken and rice, Ali al-Ezzawi, 51, insisted that there had to be "a war against Saddam to help the Iraqi people" as he struggled to make sense of protesters' slogans, shaking his head with disbelief as he spotted one saying: "A scud against Bush is worth two against Saddam."
"Why do they say these silly things? No one inside Iraq will agree with what they are doing now. They are waiting day by day for Saddam Hussein to be deposed, for the unfinished business of 1991 to be completed," said Mr al-Ezzawi.
He reflected with sadness upon the brutal suppression which followed the Shi'ite uprising in his home region after the Gulf War in 1991. "I lost my wife, my brother, my wife's sister. The Iraqi soldiers just came and shot them as they put down the uprising. Every Iraqi will tell the same story."
Mr al-Ezzawi's friend, Saad Qasim, 53, recounted his own experiences as he too watched the marchers with visible distaste showing on his face. "My 11-year-old son was killed in 1991 by Iraqi soldiers. He was just a kid. They shot him as he went to get some water," he said tearfully.
"Saddam Hussein doesn't care. He is the biggest criminal in the world. There needs to be a war against Saddam Hussein, a war for the Iraqi people. That has to be better than allowing him to continue killing all these people."
Mr al-Ezzawi was unable to keep the anger out of his voice as he agreed. "Yes, no-one seems to be thinking about that. The people on the anti-war march, they don't seem to realise, they don't have any idea what Saddam Hussein is like, the massacres, the genocides he has committed.
"I am supporting a war against Saddam Hussein. It's not a war against Iraq - it is a war against Saddam. It doesn't seem to be a point that many people on the anti-war march are making."
Mr al-Ezzawi added that, in London, people were allowed "the luxury" of being able to march against their government but in Iraq such a move could end in murder.
"March against Saddam Hussein's government? In Baghdad? You couldn't even think about it," he said. "You couldn't even dream about it. Saddam Hussein's security men would be after you straight away. You would not be jailed for life, of course not. You would be hanged, shot or executed."
Elsewhere in Britain, other Iraqi exiles were equally critical of the marchers. Among them was Dr Khalaf, a consultant neurologist at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, who worked in the Iraqi army during the country's war with Iran in the 1980s and during the Gulf War, before fleeing to Britain to escape Saddam's regime.

"Most Iraqi people will feel hurt and anger when they see Saddam Hussein show great pleasure at the scenes of the march today on television," he said.
"The march will not serve Iraqi people. It will serve only Saddam Hussein. This is probably the last real chance to get rid of him and finish this dark era in history. They should not even go to the UN. The UN is a system which can be very easily deceived."
Dr Khalaf said he was particularly angry at the lack of action, or even vocal protests, by those on the march against the years of atrocities carried out by Saddam against the Iraqi people.
"Where were you all while Saddam was killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? And where are you now, given that every week he executes people through the "court of revolution", a summary court run by the secret security office?" he said.
"Just ask yourselves why, out of 500,000 Iraqis in Britain, you will not find even 1,000 of them participating in the march? I am so frustrated by the appalling views of most of the British people. Your anti-war campaign has become mass hysteria and you are no longer able to see things properly."
Meanwhile, in Edinburgh, three more Iraqi exiles met Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, handing over a letter urging him to remove Saddam Hussein. The letter insisted that the international community had a "golden opportunity" to remove Iraq's "brutal dictatorship" and claimed the vast majority of its citizens would back a war.
One of the authors, Dr Safa Hashim, a 47-year-old university lecturer living in Glasgow, said: "We have the view that perhaps force is the only way to remove Saddam from power as well as removing his weapons of mass destruction.
"He's a brutal man and he has committed countless human rights abuses leading to the loss of one million lives and the displacement of four million others and he's also a danger to Iraq's neighbours."
Dr Hashim, originally from Basra and who has been living in Scotland for 22 years, said that the opponents of war were misguided. "They are missing the point, they don't understand that Iraqis themselves want Saddam to be removed by force. Let's listen to the Iraqi people for a change."
Dr Hashim said a new UN resolution on war was "not necessary" and he argued that a debate could take place after a war about the future of the country's oil reserves.

by john - united states army Mon Feb 17, 2003 19:49

The Left isn't listening

The Stop the War coalition is the greatest threat to any hope for a democratic Iraq

Nick Cohen
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

When Saddam is sent to rendezvous with a judge in The Hague, or a rope on a lamppost, the democratic opposition in Iraq will need help. It has many enemies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the CIA and the Foreign Office want to replace the old tyrant with a new, compliant dictator - a Saddam without a moustache. As the moment of decision arrives, Iraqi democrats and socialists have discovered that their natural allies in the European Left don't want to know them. They must add the shameless Stop the War coalition to the enemies list. Iraq is the only country in the Arab world with a strong, democratic movement. Yet I wonder how many who marched yesterday know of the dissenters' existence. The demonstration's organisers have gone to great lengths to censor and silence. How else could the self-righteous feel good about themselves? The usual accusation when whites ignore brown-skinned peoples is that of racism. It doesn't quite work in the Stop the War coalition's case. The Socialist Workers Party, which dominates the alliance, was happy to cohost the march with the reactionary British Association of Muslims. The association had blotted its copybook by circulating a newspaper which explained that apostasy from Islam is 'an offence punishable by death'. But what the hell. In the interests of multi-culturalism, the SWP ignored the protests of squeamish lefties and let that pass. The Trots aren't Islamophobes, after all. The only Muslims they have a phobia about are secular Iraqi Muslims who, shockingly, believe in human rights. The Iraqis made a fruitless appeal for fraternal solidarity last month. The Kurdish leader Barham Salih flew to a meeting of the Socialist International in Rome to argue for 'the imperative of freedom and liberation from fascism and dictatorship'. Those marchers who affect to believe in pluralism should find his arguments attractive, if they can suppress their prejudices long enough to hear him out. Salih explained that the no-fly zones enforced by the RAF and USAF had allowed his Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party to build a fair imitation of democratic state in liberated northern Iraq. The Kurds promote the freedom of journalists, women and religious and racial minorities. Naturally, the local supporters of al-Qaeda agree with Baghdad that this intolerable liberal experiment must end, and the Kurds are having to fight both Saddam and the fundamentalists. Salih was prepared for that: what he wasn't prepared for was the enmity of the anti-war movement. Foolishly, he tried to reason with it. He pointed out that the choice wasn't between war or peace. Saddam 'has been waging war for decades and he has inflicted hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.' Indeed, he continued, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds who are still under Baghdad's control continues to this day. 'I do not want war and I do not want civilian casualties, nor do those who are coming to our assistance,' he said. 'But the war has already begun.' What, he then asked, about the strange insistence of the anti-war movement that Iraqis must not be liberated until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories? Would the converse apply? If the Palestinians were on the verge of seeing Israeli rule overthrown, would hundreds of thousands take to the streets of London and bellow that Palestinians could not get rid of Sharon until Iraqis got rid of Saddam? Salih doubted it and also had little time for those who say war should be opposed because 'it's all about oil'. So what? he asked. 'Iraqis know that their human rights have too often been ignored because Iraqi oil was more important to the world than Iraqi lives. It would be a good irony if at long last oil becomes a cause of our liberation - if this is the case, then so be it. The oil will be a blessing and not the curse that it has been for so long... So to those who say "No War", I say, of course "yes", but we can only have "No War" if there is "No Dictatorship" and "No Genocide".' Readers with access to the internet can read the whole speech at www.puk.org. I urge you to do so because you're never going to hear democratic Iraqi voices if you rely on the anti-war movement. For most of the time, the comrades pretend the Iraqi opposition doesn't exist. Harold Pinter is the most striking member of a British Left with its hands over its ears. In 1988 he staged Mountain Language, a play about the banning of Kurdish in Turkey. The conceit was all too realistic: the world would never know of the suffering of the Kurds because the Kurds would never be allowed to speak. ('Your language is forbidden,' an officer bellows at Kurdish women. 'It is dead. No one is allowed to speak your language. Your language no longer exists. Any questions?') In 2003 when Iraqi Kurds found the words to ask for aid in an anti-fascist struggle, Pinter turned Pinteresque. He refused to hear the mountain tongue he had once defended and became a noisy supporter of the Stop the War coalition. The current issue of the left-wing magazine Red Pepper takes evasion into outright falsehood. It condemns journalists - well, one journalist, me - for being conned into believing the Iraqi opposition supports war. Only American stooges in the Iraqi National Congress want war, it announces with mendacious self-confidence. The main Iraqi parties - which Red Pepper lists as the Kurdish Democratic Party, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - are with the peace protesters. It's a convincing case, spoilt only by the fact that the Iraqi National Congress is an umbrella organisation whose members include the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and, indeed, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, whose leader flew to Europe to beg the Left to get its priorities right and support a war against tyranny. If evasion and lies won't do, vilification is the last resort. The writings of the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya have inspired the opposition and brought him many enemies, not least Saddam Hussein, who wants him dead. Edward Said has been only slightly less forgiving. Makiya, he wrote recently, is a man 'devoid of either compassion or real understanding, he prattles on for Anglo-American audiences who seem satisfied that here at last is an Arab who exhibits the proper respect for their power and civilisation... He represents the intellectual who serves power unquestioningly; the greater the power, the fewer doubts he has.' I like a good polemic and used to have some time for Said. But he too has fled into denial. Like the rest of anti-war movement he refuses to acknowledge that Makiya, Salih and their comrades are fighting the political battle of their lives against those 'Anglo-American audiences' in the powerhouses of London and Washington who oppose a democratic settlement. (See Makiya's article on page 20.) The democrats are struggling without the support of Western liberals and socialists because they don't fit into a pat world view. Here's why. The conclusion the Iraqi opposition has reluctantly reached is that there is no way other than war to remove a tyrant whose five secret police forces make a palace coup or popular uprising impossible. As the only military force on offer is provided by America, they will accept an American invasion. This is their first mistake. American and British power is always bad in the eyes of muddle-headed Left, the recent liberations of East Timor, Sierra Leone and Kosovo notwithstanding. Then the uppity wogs compound their offence and tell their European betters to think about the political complexities. The British and American governments aren't monoliths, they argue. The State Department and the CIA have always been the foes of Iraqi freedom. But they are countered by the Pentagon and a US Congress which passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 - a law which instructs the American government to support democracy. Not one Iraqi I have met trusts the Foreign Office. However, they have had a grudging admiration for Tony Blair ever since he met the Kurdish leaders and gave them a fair hearing - a courteous gesture which hasn't been matched by the Pinters, Trotskyists, bishops, actresses and chorus girls on yesterday's march. The Iraqis must now accept that they will have to fight for democracy without the support of the British Left. Disgraceful though our failure to hear them has been, I can't help thinking that they'll be better off without us.

Contact the author
Email your views to [email protected]

by military brass Mon Feb 17, 2003 22:21

They indoctrinate lumpen elements, and force them to follow orders mindlessly and obey any order. An tiny minority break away from this but most conform and some become extreme right wingers

by Intransigent Tue Feb 18, 2003 00:02

Don't attack the soldiers yet. When a revolution happens we will have to have them on our side. Just don't alienate them. They just need to be educated about the error of their ways.

by Malcolm Y Tue Feb 18, 2003 00:15

R.I.P.

by FourWinds Tue Feb 18, 2003 13:29

Is this Iraqi democracy going to be like the one installed recently in Afghanistan?

by John Beecher Tue Feb 18, 2003 15:53

"Don't attack the soldiers yet. When a revolution happens we will have to have them on our side. Just don't alienate them. They just need to be educated about the error of their ways."
If the IDF is attacked they will defend themselves, using force if necessary. That is a fact. Trust me they wont follow you guys ;)

by Mayfield Man Tue Feb 18, 2003 17:19

The people talking about legal actions against the Irish Military Online site are very self rightous. Incitement to hatred, etc. Yet this indymedia site itself has a notice which claims there is going to be a revolution with an army... Which one the IRA, ETA, FARC? Terrorists. What about people take legal action against this site. No - because a)that would be against free speech, b)why would you take legal action against the site, they didn't write it, and c)how do we even know thew person that wrote the piece was a bone fide contributor.

Just looking around your site there are a myriad of postings inciting to hatred against Gardaí, trying to get people to destroy private property, and to break the law of the land. Remember, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

by Comrade Kornilov - Socialist Workers Party Tue Feb 18, 2003 17:32

We should not be getting at the army. Where would us good comrades have been without armies. As was posted, we must re-educate the soldiers about the error of their ways. Remember how the Red Army 'liquidised' 25 million innocents in the good old U.S.S.R. But, let us not forget what work out proud socialist soldiers did in Tianamen Square. We socialists are superior to Facists... Hitler only killed 6million Jews - what can I say but the figures speak for themselves, Socialism is the way forward!

Remember the Revolution will begin when LE Potemkin fires its guns at Haulbowline this evening. Be there or be a cubist!

by James C Fri Jul 16, 2004 01:27 Darkstar_rs at hotmail dot com

I know some of those IMO (FFI) posters personally, I can assure you that they don't actually intend to fire on a protest. But taking these jokes seriously, you are insulting you own intelligence. Intelligence most of you have. If anything, they intend to stop other people doing so. Please don't mock people who are trained to protect Irish citzens. To say the least, it's annoying.

As for people telling me to "Think" and "Be critical", just because I don't think the way you do doesn't mean I'm not thinking. If you THINK about it, it makes sence.....

As a member of the Defence Forces myself, I think it's ironic that we are given out to over having private harmless jokes. And many times when in uniform I have been abused to my face. Where's the logic? The only asumption I can come to is that you people (and I say that phrase reluctantly) only think your way of thinking and acting is the right one. If this were to be correct, you whole organisation of open mindedness makes no sence.
Thanks

Ps: Feel free to email me any toughts you have as I would love to hear any defensive arguements.