Dublin Prepares for War (photos)

by - Sun Feb 23, 2003 13:03 out of town a while.

ãrnotts have a carpark I see.

by ghy Sun Feb 23, 2003 13:24

notice the big spike dehind the signs too.

by Graham Caswell - Various Sun Feb 23, 2003 15:27 caswell at indigo dot ie

This is seriously disturbing. Whoever is putting up these posters is too scared to put their own name on them so they smear indymedia.ie (and infoshop.org) with their seeming call for violence?

Its hard to think of a better way to destroy indymedia.ie's credibility and to feed into establishment predjudces.

The slimeball who has done this has NEVER joined an Indymedia list and discussed his posters and has NEVER come to an Indymedia meeting with samples of them. Instead, against democracy and against basic fairness the slime sticks indymedia's url on his vile posters and stays in the dark.

Whoever is doing this should be dragged out into the light, exposed, and STOPPED. Let them promote violence in their own name.

by Eamonn Crudden Sun Feb 23, 2003 16:05

Don't mind IMC being advertised as a source of info but making a poster seem to be published by IMC IRL and INFOSHOP is just messy and undemocratic - If you think we should be publishing such posters then why not raise it on the site/lists or at open meetings (last on 15 Feb).

by Daithi - 1 of IMC Ireland Sun Feb 23, 2003 16:37

Just to state the obvious - these posters have nothing to do with this site. Indymedia, the site, the name, the concept, is not owned in a traditional way - it's the property of every person and group that uses it and contributes to it, but it's also the exclusive property of no-one. We always welcome publicity but a poster like this creates a false impression. If your political message is strong enough then it should stand on its own; not propped up by riding on the back of another organisation. My comment would be the same no matter what the message of the poster was - left, right, or middle, it's still an unfair appropriation of the spirit and ideals of Indymedia. If the producer of this poster has enough respect for Indymedia to promote it, then they should pay attention to our concerns and leave us out of their campaign.

by Daithi Sun Feb 23, 2003 17:08

talk first, poster later :)

by PHuq Hedd Sun Feb 23, 2003 18:46

I don't think that it's fair to associate indymedia.ie with any _specific_ message including ones that I agree with like these ones.

That said, I think Graham can take his opinion about "violence" and add it to the rest of his half-baked rhetoric.

by peace fighter Sun Feb 23, 2003 20:31

yeah cos i really think the image of a peace protestor with a petrol bomb is totally non-contradictory, and most definatley will not be used in the media to portray us all as mad anarchists.

time for a bit of cop on here, whatever about direct action, theres no need for this shit. is the poster maker saying we should declare a 'war' on war? should we blow up our leaders, military installations and other such like things? should we effectively become 'peace-fighters'? "I'm so pro-peace I kill people for my belief" - in fact why not join the bloody militant pro-life dicks, y'know the one who murder doctors who carry out abortions.

by won't say Sun Feb 23, 2003 20:49

are petrol bombs not 'violent'? maybe they are 'non-violent'? do they burn people maybe? do the people scream when they burn? is that 'violence'?

or is it just a poster? posters dont influence people. do they?

by redJaDe Sun Feb 23, 2003 21:25

the broken rifle image is from the War Resisters http://warresisters.org

They are a pacifist organisation in the US (and elsewhere) that help high school kids resist draft registration (yeah, there's still draft registration in the USA) and other good things.

Most Quakers I've know were also members of the War Resisters, for example. I don't think they'd associate themselves with such nonsense.

Truth is, there aint much we can do about such posters except humiliate the idiots that do it. Which reminds me of when I heard BOC on NewsTalk 106 complaining that 'the people' who go to this site are allowed to say anything.

Indymedia is a threat to 'proper' journalists and the general establishment because it is a non-organization united by its freedom of speech. But because it is a non-organisation it can easily be hi-jacked.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 24, 2003 18:54

I'm in agreement with Daithi and I think that whoever added indymedia.ie to the posters had no business doing so.

This has NO bearing on whether or not violence can be justified as a response to violence or whether pacifism is anything other than a narrowly effective tactic which is turned into a cult-behaviour by people that have never studied history.

It's great that redJaDe was there to get photos of the poster while they were still fresh and give them some prominence on indymedia though: otherwise I probably wouldn't have been aware of them.

by Aaron in AmeriKKKa Mon Feb 24, 2003 21:00 ie17527 at aarons dot fastmail dot fm

There are two different issues here. One is whether any group should be using the name of indymedia in a way that implies that indymedia endorses that groups political line, whether that line be pacifism, armed struggle, vegetarianism or whatever. I'd say an unqualified NO! But since there's not much difference here on that point, I won't say more about it.

The other is whether the implied endorsement of armed struggle in the anti-war struggle is correct or not.

As a U.S. citizen who lived through the Vietnam war, I recall the bombing of the Army Math Research Center in Madison in 1970. That act, considering the fact that it was the work of a handful of people with no military experience, was quite a significant blow to the U.S. war machine.

But although the bombing dented a war machine that was killing hundreds of thousands of Asians every year, the fact that one innocent U.S. person was killed caused many within the anti-war movement to join the pro-war forces in reacting with horror! It seems that even in the anti-war movement, lives in "our" country were more important than lives of "the other". Is that still true today -- in the U.S. and in Europe?

by billy bragg Tue Feb 25, 2003 19:54

it doesnt say anything about violence, it says "WALK OUT"
theres a picture...a picture... of a petrol bomb, implying that walking out is your weapon.....(and, need i add, a gun being smashed)
it doesnt say "set shit on fire" or "burn people

the web addresses are so people who usually wouldnt, might go to them
and who can give permission to use them if nobody owns them?

arent they supposed to be by the people for the people?

i like them

PS no it wasnt me