From Protest to Resistance

by Ruth O Tue Feb 18, 2003 21:19 Missouri, USA

Ciaron, Karen, Deirdre, Damien and Nuin,

Don't forget
Mark 13:11

by Eileen - Liverpool Catholic Worker Tue Feb 18, 2003 22:11 eileenlaing at merseymail dot com

Luv Ya Cairon and the gang. Whipping up support in Liverpool. Celebrating on 4th March. Alex Cox sends his best wishes but he will be in America and will send a letter of support. Keep the faith.

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Feb 18, 2003 22:35

You write beautifully and forcefully Ciaron, constantly challenging us to keep our eye on the goal (justice and peace) and not be side-tracked by the sell-outs' syren song.

by Joe Mullins Tue Feb 18, 2003 22:45

The complicity in this war of the Irish gombeen/comprador ruling strata is made inevitable by their program of integrating Ireland fully into the Anglo-American Empire.

by Kevin Tue Feb 18, 2003 23:50

Anyone going to do anything about them or is it just the Americans?

by Tinpot Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:24

It is all very well to say "What about all those British troops leaving out of the north?". What you have to understand is that the security situation is very different here.
There is a serious risk that peace protesters at an army base could be mistaken for republican protesters or worse still, that a peace protest could be used as a cover by republicans (one would hope they wouldn't stoop that low).
Either way, the risk of serious injury is many times greater than is the case in practicaly any scenario you could think of in the south.
Until such time as the heads up here can think of an appropriate method of taking real action without risking their lives, they will limit their action to publicity stunts.
If, in the meantime, any of you heros who keep bringing up this theme want to attack a barracks or whatever you are proposing, organise it yourselves. If the people here think it's viable, they will support it. Constructive suggestions welcome.

by . Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:31

Ciaron's previous statement from jail can be found at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28489

More info at:
http://www.geocities.com/londoncatholicworker

by Kevin Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:39

Direct Action is fine as long as the military you are taking action against doesn't shoot back. How very brave of you all to take such a courageous stand for peace.

I do not understand why a protest outside British barracks where soliders are leaving for war is out of the question, or drawing attention to them in the way that has been done at Shannon. Again I ask, why is it unacceptable for the Americans to refuel in Shannon but acceptable for the British to prepare for war in the north?

by Andrew Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:57

Kevin you are one of a number of people that have put this demand that those carrying out direct actions at Shannon should also do so in the north. I agree that such actions should also happen in the north but don't understand why you and others expect those of us who are already very busy to organise them for you.

Why don't you take the initative and with the others making the calls here start organising one. If you then post details here then I'm sure many of us would consider giving a hand or at least turning up on the day. We are not some sort of 'dial an activist' servce you know!

by Gypsy Bhoy Wed Feb 19, 2003 13:51

Food for thought for everybody in the movement.

Time for the labour and union bureaucrats to move away from the photo opportunities and 'stand shoulder to shoulder' with any union member who needs your support in Shannon.

And yes it was a disgrace that there was no room on the platform for Mary Kelly. Let's hear her on the 1st.

by Tinpot Wed Feb 19, 2003 14:36

"I see", he says smugly, "Direct Action is fine as long as the military you are taking action against doesn't shoot back. How very brave of you all to take such a courageous stand for peace."

In the circumstances, I don't see the point of putting my life at risk to attempt to prevent other lives being lost. The time may come for me to put my body in the firing line but that is not my current tactic. Feel free, oh brave Sir Kevin, to get yourself shot up for the cause.

Obviously it is unacceptable for the British to prepare for war in the north. I understand the need to do something up here but it is much more difficult to get popular support for the type of action you are proposing. People get suspicious, etc.

There are people investigating ways of drawing attention to the matter. Kevin, your ideas and participation would be welcome. If people like your schemes, they will support them.

Stop whining and get organising.

by S. Aerobics - Reclaim the Runways Wed Feb 19, 2003 16:46

The 'Pledge of Resistance' by people in England sounds like an interesting idea.
Is there an Irish 'draft' ?
Or is the idea to take individual resposibility for direct action ?
It's a valid point that a lot of the work by anti-war groups can just be ignored.
See how Ahern has 'misinterpreted' (my part in) the demonstrations last Saturday.
In reply to a question of whether a pre-emptive strike (invasion) of Iraq would be illegal' Cowen replied "I do not believe it is in our interests to provide for a definite position in relation to a hypothetical cicumstance."

I believe it is our interests (for peace) for a definite position (direct action) in relation to a hypothetical cicumstance (war).

I've just made a pledge of resistance.

by amazon - none Wed Feb 19, 2003 18:44 hleeck at indigo dot ie

All these people that have been following
the ( George Monbiot popularised this...) maxim "Think globally,act locally..." fused on Sat, 15.02 ,into one big global mass of 2o million people , demonstrating their desire not to have an unjust war.

Some went for "direct action", some thought mass mobilisation is the only way forward---
As I sort of expected, there now seems to be a kind of limbo, a lot of confusion as to what the next step could be and factionalising and divisions are coming back to the surface- what else to expect in the face of the historically unprecedented....

the different strands came together, maybe they will AGAIN.
The problem is this: if the Terrible Twins are indeed absolutely intent on attack on Iraq and world domination, as it seems it will happen pretty soon.
Why ?
Because soon the desert heat in Iraq will warm the place up to the degree that bush won t want to send his soldiers in, and or the military equipment...so the whole thing has to happen SOON. Also there will be (apparently)a moonless fortnight at the beginning of march---creating ideal fighting condituions....
for westerners anyway.

so - resistance action REALLY should be multipronged and should be concentrated on the immediate furtue.

Maybe if we delay the whole thing for the next 2 or 3 weeeks ----imminent war will simply become unfeasible.

by Michael Patrick - Hard Working Individuals Fri Feb 21, 2003 00:27 mpps at gwi dot net

Are you folks so inane as to attack and mual the hand that feeds you? Communist sheople who are being led off to slaughter, I emplore you to learn your lessons of History. You are why Rome collapsed. You are why AIDS is running rampant and our coolective culture still celebrates promiscuity and sodomy. Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, totalitarianism, and violent dicatatorships, war has done nothing. Note how I didn't include communism? Becuase every effort at communism has failed unless you want to use China and North Korea as your examples. But than you can't because they starve their people to feed their Army don't they? They use children as slaves and prisoners as involuntary organ donors, don't they. Oh, maybe that is your concept of socialized medicine. Are you turds so helpessly lazy and brainwashed as to believe that you cannot rise above the mindless grey masses to become part of the civilized world? Are you that beat and broken as to believe the Islamo-Fascist will call you a good little Euro-Trash for aiding them in their Jihad for world domination? Do you want to be like the French? What have they produced since Napoleon besides grapes from hundred year old vines, bad manners, and hairy armpits on socialist women? They are resentful of the U.S. because they were saved from tyranny three times by the U.S. and they repay their debt by whining and plotting to protect their oil interests with Iraq! You are the useful idiots of world domination not the Democracies who could have taken oil ten years ago, if it were truly a real intent. The situation is about stability in your home countries so you can whimper from your dole pampered arse about how evil the nations who pay for your freedoms with their lives are. If you really want to rise to the top, you need character, a strong work ethic, and common sense. Contrary to your present position of defending a known despot serial killer who poisons and tortures his own people, contrary to buying into a one world communist church of the elite. Lokk at the present and surviving models of your beliefs, do you really believe you will be in charge, or just another mindless and state controlled servant of the new peoples world order? Grow Up, Take a shower, and get to work! Stop being part of the problem.

by Strypey - IMC Aotearoa Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:16 strypey at yahoo dot com

OK Folx, I know this guy is probably just encouraging me to waste my time replying to what is so obviously a load of shite but hey, you will strike some of these arguments trying to correct the spin out there so here goes...

Some comments on the style - Michael writes much and says little. His little rant is shot through with assumptions which are in themselves revealing.

"Are you folks so inane as to attack and mual the hand that feeds you?"

Note he does not specify who he is addressing (IMC Ireland or its readers? The local peace group? The global peace movement? Anti-globalisation protesters?). But because he has posted this as a comment on an anti-war action report I presume he is addressing the western peace movement.

His assumptions are:
1) The peace movement is composed entirely of people on social welfare. No doubt his criticisms are specific to Ireland, thus he can ignore the thousands marching in the third world against US agression who are most definitely NOT on social welfare.
2) People on social welfare have no right to criticise the state that pays their dole check, even in so-called democracies.

Or: 3) Those in control of the state and the military provide the population with food. The fact that food is in fact grown by farmers and expropriated by governments and corporations to feed armies and profits seems to escape him.

"Communist sheople who are being led off to slaughter, I emplore you to learn your lessons of History."

Here we see why he does not address his criticism to anyone in particular. This is because he has divided the world's population into 2 neat groups: those that support the status quo and those who don't.

Ironically, in doing so he actually demonstrates a better grasp on the motivations behind US aggession than many of the moderates in the peace movement. See Michael understands that Iraq is being attacked to serve the interests of the corporate rich. To oppose the invasion of Iraq is to oppose the interests of capital therefore everyone in the peace movement is a 'communist'.

I am leaping to the conclusion that Michael is a Randist Libertarian. I find it ironic that everything from their shoe size to their lame insults are standardized across the world and yet they call everyone else "sheople".

"You are why Rome collapsed."

Michael has studied history. He understands that Rome collapsed because after the conversion of Constantine it tried to force all the communities in its empire to abandon their traditional lifestyles and beliefs and convert to Roman Catholic "Christianity". All the military might of its legions were not enough to control the rebellion this provoked.

Similiarly Bush (et al) and their attempts to enforce the corporate religion of "Freetrade" on the people of the world have provoked a networked resistance movement that no amount of military spending can diffuse. The movement against the invasion of Iraq is simply one mobilization of this movement.

"You are why AIDS is running rampant and our coolective culture still celebrates promiscuity and sodomy."

There are many theories on the causes of the clutch of symptoms known as AIDS. Whatever its causes, the fact remains that the greatest epidemic is in Africa. To say that Africa and Ireland share a "coolective culture" is a stretch to say the least.

In fact one of the main reasons AIDS is still running rampant in Africa is because intellectual property rules like those in the WTO TRIPS deal prevent African governments from manufacturing cheap AIDS drugs, dispite having the resources to do so.

I am tempted to comment on the likely psychological make-up of someone who considers "promiscuity and sodomy" to be political health problems but I won't...

"Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, totalitarianism, and violent dicatatorships, war has done nothing."

Michael casually throws 3 very separate categories together here:

1) Activities: Slavery is in itself a form of warfare and historically every society that practiced slavery has been stopped from doing so by its own collapse. The fact that such a collapse might take the form of a war is not a convincing moral case for waging war.

In the current situation I would invite Michael to identify the slaves US cluster-bombing of the Iraqi population would liberate.

2) Ideologies: nazism is of course a form of fascism which is in turn a form of totalitarianism. So Michael cleverly makes three examples out of one. All totalitarians agree that all aspects of society should be subordinate to a single unifying ideology. They simply disagree agree about WHOSE ideology that should be.

To respond to this argument for war, I invite him to consider World War II, which was in fact 2 wars:
1) A ground war between 2 coalitions of totalitarian governments; the German Nazis and Italian Fascists on one side and the Imperial powers of England, France et all and Stalinist Russia on the other.
2) An air/sea war between two totalitarian governments; the Imperial Japanese
and the Republican US.

In neither of these cases did the war end totalitarianism. It was a natural selection battle to see which totalitarian regimes would dominate the period of economic boom that inevitably proceeds from a war economy.

In the current case, the invasion of Iraq is part of Bush's push to cement "Freetrade" totalitarianism as the dominant regime. So this falls down as a moral case for war also.

3) Governments: There has never been a government that did not use its resources to perpetrate violence on either its own people or foreigners. All goverments are violent dictatorships the difference being the degree and type of violence and the propoganda that surrounds it.

Since wars end with the surrender of one of the states/ groups of states involved, to say that wars bring down violent dictatorships is stating the obvious. It does little to justify the suffering of civilians and military personnel and the destruction of essential infrastructure that war also inevitably involves.

"Note how I didn't include communism? Becuase every effort at communism has failed unless you want to use China and North Korea as your examples."

This refers back to the assumption I mentioned before, that being against the war makes you anti-capitalist - ergo communist. These statements also assume:

1) That opponents of US aggression agree on an ideal form of national goverment (ie 'communism')
2) That totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union were examples of such a 'communism'

Michael then reveals the emptiness of this line of argument by describing ways in which these regimes resemble their 'democratic' capitalist counterparts.

"But than you can't because they starve their people to feed their Army don't they?"

Millions of children in the US suffer from malnutrition while billions are spent on the military. To state that the rulers of post-Stalinist states do the same is again to state the obvious, proving nothing.

"They use children as slaves..."

Yes, to manufacture clothing at a profitable rate for US corporations who turn a blind eye. But of course workers rights are NEVER abused within the US... unless you count the huddled masses working as indentured labour or the thousands of minimum-wage casual workers whose livelihood can evaporate in the blink of a CEO's eye.

"...and prisoners as involuntary organ donors, don't they."

Possibly, though I doubt they charge prisoners rent for being in prison and then re-imprison them after their sentence is served if they are unable to pay their debts to the prison. This common practice in the privatized prison system of the US.

"Oh, maybe that is your concept of socialized medicine."

The assumptions here are:
1) That opponents of US military aggression are unanimously opposed to the profit-motivated approach to health care
2) That they propose an alternative health care system which utterly disreguards human rights

"Are you turds so helpessly lazy and brainwashed as to believe that you cannot rise above the mindless grey masses to become part of the civilized world?"

Presumably the 'civilized world' is the one that spends more on weapons of mass destruction than on education, health and social welfare put together. The utter contempt Michael shows for ordinary people struggling to make the best of the crumbs their corporate rulers throw them speaks for itself.

>> Are you that beat and broken as to believe the Islamo- Fascist will call you a good little Euro-Trash for aiding them in their Jihad for world domination? > Do you want to be like the French? What have they produced since Napoleon besides grapes from hundred year old vines, bad manners, and hairy armpits on socialist women? > They are resentful of the U.S. because they were saved from tyranny three times by the U.S. > and they repay their debt by whining and plotting to protect their oil interests with Iraq! > You are the useful idiots of world domination not the Democracies who could have taken oil ten years ago, if it were truly a real intent. <<

How do you take billions of barrels of oil home? In your back pocket?

The Iraqi attack on Kuwait was prompted by Kuwaitis skew-drilling into Iraq's oil reserves on behalf of their US corporate handlers. The 'Gulf War' and the sanctions that followed were an atempt to convince Hussein to lower the price of Iraqi oil, which has the highest production and reserves and therefore sets global oil prices.

The sanctions prevent anyone from exporting food, medicines and other essential goods to Iraq unless it is part of the Food for Oil program. The US message is clear - sell your resources to us at the price we set or watch your people starve, suffer and die.

In effect the west DID take Iraq's oil. Now that some countries including France and Germany are arguing for lifting the sanctions and trading with Iraq normally, the US resorts to brute force and 'regime change' to make sure it still gets in oil cheap enough.

"The situation is about stability in your home countries so you can whimper from your dole pampered arse about how evil the nations who pay for your freedoms with their lives are."

Assumptions (on top of the previously mentioned one about peace movement all being state beneficiaries):
1) Stability in rich nations in dependent on the free flow of cheap oil from poor ones
2) Military aggression overseas is the only way to guarantee that flow
3) Being a beneficiary of cheap oil stolen at nuclear-warhead-point increases ones civil liberties

I contend that stability can only come about through sustainable development which means research into energy sources beyond oil. Therefore to ensure stability Bush should have cut the military budget instead of the energy reseach budget.

A military vehicle uses as much fossil fuel on average in one day as a bus uses in a year. If stability relies on oil then why is Bush wasting so much of it? Presumably because he thinks you need to use oil to steal oil.

As for the argument that the "War Against Everyone" increases our freedoms, just look at the Patriot Act and similiar legislation all around the world that effectively criminalizes dissent of any kind to the ruling elite.

"If you really want to rise to the top, you need character, a strong work ethic, and common sense... contrary to buying into a one world communist church of the elite. Lokk at the present and surviving models of your beliefs, do you really believe you will be in charge, or just another mindless and state controlled servant of the new peoples world order? "

Assumptions:
1) Everyone can be on top our current social system if they have these qualities
2) Everyone aspires to be on top
3) People protest against war because they are not on top and want to get there without 'working' for it
4) People involve themselves in the peace movement and the anti-corporate movement it inersects with in the hopes of gaining power within some 'new world order' of communist peaceniks

Logic suggest that a social system in which people can get to the top requires a bottom for everyone else to be on. Observation shows that for each person on the top there have to exponentially more people at each level below them.

Thus the dominant socio-economic system is a pyramid in which people have to clamber over each other like jews in a gas chamber. Common sense suggests that success in such a competition is unlikely to involve generous 'character, a strong work ethic and common sense'.

"Contrary to your present position of defending a known despot serial killer who poisons and tortures his own people"

I've already dealt with the strawman of 'for Hussein or against him'.

It is not unlikely considering the historical record of governments that Hussein's regime oppresses the Iraqi people. However a little research will reveal to Michael that the poisoning incident he refers to was in fact perpetrated by Iran while the US was funding and arming Iraq to fight them back in the 80s.

Besides, as I've mentioned, invading Iraq and murdering its people will do little to reduce support for Hussein or encourage a pro-democracy movement against him. Which serves Bush nicely, wouldn't want Iraq becoming another Venzuela would he?

"Grow Up, Take a shower, and get to work!

Assumptions:
1) The peace movement is predominantly ignorant young people. Fact: Ages on peace demos range from chilren to retirees. Fact: All of these people oppose the war because they ask questions and read and learn.
2) Peace demonstators smell and don't wash. Even if true this is no argument for invading Iraq ;P
3) (Again) Peace demonstrators are all unemployed. Fact: Trade unions are a strong presence in the peace movement in many countries.
4) being an employee in a business is the only normal and acceptable form of economic or social activity. Fact: Millions of the world's people live perfectly sustainable lifeways that have nothing to do with 9-5 wage-slavery or the middle-class suburban idyll.

"Stop being part of the problem."

Whose problem?

by . Sun Mar 02, 2003 12:15

PIT STOP PLOUGHSHARES - Ciaron Out; Damien, Deirdre, Karen, and Nuin Remain in Limerick Prison

"Minimum Security"
1 March 2003
http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31664