Shannon Direct (in)Action leaves questions for GNAW leadership

by runner Sun Mar 02, 2003 15:53

This fiasco is something to be learned from. we either stay together and work together or we get hanged by the garda and the emdia.

get a clue GNAW!

If the anarchies seem like amatures now, just wait until the WEF comes to Dublin - it will be a disaster.

This should be a time to put aside differences and work together - not this childish attempts of staeling the show from one another.

Am I for DA (or rather NVCD)? Yes. But the March 1st strategy was absurd, and obviously so - so much so that it helped the other side. Shame!

by Ann Idiot Sun Mar 02, 2003 16:01

What an idiot. you know from someone having a go at the anarchist conspiracy and the sell-out liberals at the same time that they're a SWP or SP cultie - don't worry, when the beautiful revolution comes around you can shoot both crowds and have it your way.

by Direct actionist Sun Mar 02, 2003 16:11

I dunno what the pink flags were all about really - for those who shouldn't have been there in the first place? Why were leading WSM members carrying pink flags? Answers please.

by bill Sun Mar 02, 2003 16:37

The pink section was for those who wanted to support the action but weren't comfortable taking part. The reasons people ('leading wsm members' and otherwise) had for not wanting to take part were varied, some were on bail, others would be risking their jobs or leaving their children uncared for if arrested. More people simply didn't fancy arrest or the risk of getting a beating from the cops.
Isn't it a bit ironic that people criticising the attempt to take down the fence would also critisise those who didn't take an active role in the attempt?

by Eoin G Sun Mar 02, 2003 16:58

The GNAW had no chance of getting through that fence, and never did.The fuckers who didn`t come on the march(LP,SF,PANA,Greens)sold us out by whipping up such a media frenzy.Both groups played into the hands of the right.I was especially shocked by the Greens who have been with us for a good while and who I respsct.

by xip boi Sun Mar 02, 2003 17:18

I do not know what is more pathetic - blaming your comrades for your own failure or blaming the media for showing up?

by xConorx Sun Mar 02, 2003 17:39 xconorx at hotmail dot com Belfast

The non-violent direct action yesterday was worthwhile and certainly did not play into the hands of the agressors. Marches and speeches are all very well and there is certainly room for all forms of protest (be they direct action, civil disobedience, talks, marching etc), but to seek to discredit the direct action group and distance yourself from people who are equally opposed to the war is obviously counter-productive.
The more sides from which voices are geard the bigger the chance there is of having an impact. Direct action is the best way of getting the Irish and US goverments to take notice. They know there is opposition to the war - they just want to know how serious we are. Are we just going to hold marches at the weekend (which are of course valid and defintely productive) or are there going to be escalations in the opposition to war, as there was yesterday. there should be more protests at Shannon - as frequently as is practical and we should push them with every means we have until they take heed and take a positive stand against the war and stop supporting the military machine. If this means tearing down a fence (hardly comparable to what will happen if we do nothing) then so be it.

by woman with a mission Sun Mar 02, 2003 18:07

Cmon, we are stoopid if we think what happened yesterday was a success. I was at the fence, linked arms, witnessed cop brutality, etc etc, and to be honest the size of the crowd at the back gawking at us surprised me. The com above says WSM members were carrying pink flags - yeah, that's an issue if they could have been with us. I don't know the reasons why they were there though I must admit it really surprised me. I assume they had good reasons cos I know the WSMers are generally sound. Still, I was very shocked to see certain figures standing back, keeping out of trouble - people that talk the talk.

by Shorty Sun Mar 02, 2003 18:09

Quote

"they are not elected and not accountable to the activists in the GNAW."

Wouldn't that be because they believe in direct democracy rather than representative democracy and hierarchy. Don't they also hold open meetings which anyone can attend?

by Myrna G. Sun Mar 02, 2003 18:17

150 turned up for the candlelit vigil backed by S.F. L. and Greens. nuff said. What credibility can S.F. Labour and Greens have, if they maintain that if a bribed U.N. back war, then the war is legitimate?

by Vil Sun Mar 02, 2003 18:26

Yeah but WSM still call the shots without being accountable for it but without their input being a decsion made by the whole group. Its still a leadership except its not democratically decided, made up by who has the most time, charisma, experience etc. A hierarchy exists masked by rhetoric, in fact its worse because there is no structure to change the leadership that exists under the surface.

by Rob Sun Mar 02, 2003 20:20

What happened yesterday was a necessity for the profression of the anti-war movement. The people taking part in the GNAW action put it to the parties claiming solidarity with the central objective and expressed sentiment to show their true colours and support all parties committed to non-voilent Dircet Action . . . whatever their definition of such action may be. The fence was not going to be torn down, what happened was a symbolic gesture beamed into the people who were hiding behind words like "violence" and "unlawfulness" which clarified just exactly how far the government would go to protect those words for economic and political profit, despite the will of the people. This action also put the onus squarly upon the parties that pulled out to demonstrate their commitment to peaceful means, unity and solidarity among the movement, and support for all non-violent tactics adopted by any group in order to emphasise the anti-war sentiment of the mahority of the population. It was crucial that numbers turned out for both sides and that both sides stood in a moment of unity and support. The fence being pulled down was that erected by the scaremongering of those hiding behind words and discouraging greater numbers, the movement is stronger now than ever and argument and debate are healthy - a clear sign of democratic commitment (demanding much more than the government is offering its people).

by Rob Sun Mar 02, 2003 20:22

in first line "profession" should read "progression"

by Pretty bird - Party of One Sun Mar 02, 2003 20:36

Jesus, the last comment is most contorted explanation so far! The call went out, you damaged the movement with posturing, and very few supported you. End of story. There could have been tens of thousands at Shannon, but GNAW clearly has no interest in a mass movement. 'My way or no way' seems to the principle here. I reckon it was all about media attention and about outflanking the Trots.

I think what was done was basically about gaining media coverage in order to convert people to anarchist methods (not unlike the Trots) and had little to do with the anti-war movement. Did GNAW even consider the damage they were doing to the wider movement? This event has shattered the unity forged on F15 and allowed the LP/GP/SF etc to slidder off. GNAW is obviously nothing but a bunch of amateurs and messers.

by harry Sun Mar 02, 2003 20:44

"Don't they hold open meetings which anyone can attend?"

Not all activists can attend all activist meetings. From my experience of working with such groups a lot of decisions are made at low attended meetings. Would it not be far more democratic if some people were elected to regularly meet and do essential work and then hold these elected people accountable in general meeting that everyone can attend.

by Rob Sun Mar 02, 2003 20:50

Firstly I cannot speak for any of the groups involved as I am not a representative or member of any. I accept that such movements need the organisation supplied by such formation, however I like to make my own decisions and not be bound to any particular groups ideology - but this is a different argument.

The low turnout, however, can almost certainly be linked to the scaremongering tactics and illusion of division created by those with almost malicious intent to undermine the movement. The people now know that what happened at shannon was peaceful and may not be so easily disuaded in the future.

It was not about 'my way or no way', but rather about 'Every and Any peaceful way'.

All protest is about civil disobedience in essence, all protest is a form of Direct Action it just exists on a scale - We no need to decide how far along that scale is too far and the small protest in Shannon helped this argument immensly, showing the disuaded people that we have not gone too far and we are still united. Whether affiliated with a particular group or not we stand as individuals ubited against war.

by Sean Sun Mar 02, 2003 21:20

Am I the only one who thinks the big mistake of the Grassroots crowd was informing the State exactly what they were going to do, giving it an even better chance to prepare itself? Isn't the element of surprise crucial in direct action? I think it's clear after Saturday (and I was there)that, for the time being at least, Shannon isn't the place for direct action. You don't attack the enemy where he's strongest, but where he's weakest. Direct action is needed to stop this war, just as mass demos are - it's not a case of either/or. But direct action has to shift now from the place where the warplanes are landing to the places where permission is granted to them. Occupy government departments, ministers' offices, that kind of thing. But whatever we do, don't advertise it beforehand! Let's have a bit of cop-on.

by Cian Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:47

The very fact that the demo at Shannon cost the state 1 million euro to police is in itself a victory.

The whole argument that it is in Ireland's narrow economic interest to allow U.S. refuelling at Shannon will simply not be true from any perspective if we manage to keep this pace of action up.

While I support the right of the IAWM to organise as they wish, and while I recognise that thousands may be more comfortable voicing their opposition against the use of Shannon and war without using non-violent direct action, I don't think anyone could argue that the IAWM is causing the state much cost.

In fact the 100,000 strong demo on the 15th was policed by FAR LESS Gardaí than the GNAW demo in Shannon. And while F15 was a great display of opposition to government policy in Shannon, it was also ignored. Direct Action cannot be ingnored and was not ignored. The state had to deploy riot police as well as the army in Shannon to protect US war planes from Irish citizens.

All they have left is the deployment of even greater numbers of Gardaí and army. They are fast running out of options.

by zzzzzzzzzz Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:30

Quote by Rob "The fence was not going to be torn down, what happened was a symbolic gesture beamed into the people who were hiding behind words like "violence" and "unlawfulness" which clarified just exactly how far the government would go to protect those words for economic and political profit, despite the will of the people."

Statement by GNAW
"A mass trespass is planned, with two groups involved. Those following white flags will form a line, one deep, facing the fence. The line will walk towards the fence with arms linked and, according to the statement, "once we reach the fence we will attempt to pull it down" and "remain in the grass verge on the other side of the fence." Pink flags will be used to clearly identify those who support the action but do not wish to take part."

Looks like you had no idea about what was planned.

End result was more like handbags at 10 paces. GNAW really looked silly. Hopefully these "virtual warriors" will stay in their "virtual world" and let the rest of us get onwith the job of building the anti-war movement

by Paul G. - None Mon Mar 03, 2003 00:57

Cian claims that the state is fast running out of options as a result of Saturdays GNAW protest. What do you mean? The protest was completely and easily contained and the boys in blue spent most of their time scratching themselves! They certainly didn't feel challenged and there was never any chance of a perimeter breach. To be honest, it was clear that they saw it as an easy day out. Nice overtime - for which I'm sure they're very grateful.

Look, it really is time to stop fantasizing and start living in the real world. You got huge pre-publicity in the mainstream press and not only didn't you arrive mob-handed, you diminished the overall numbers. Did the state feel threatened? Not on your life! On the other hand, 100,000 people on the streets of Dublin dramatically changed the nature of discussion on Iraq and put the government on the defensive. We need to continue that pressure with more mass mobilisations, and when we bring tens of thousands to Shannon we will really close the place down.

Small crowds are easily faced down. I know that the GNAW position is that everybody else let you down and if only...if only...if only...if only...Power lies in mass mobilisations not Direct Actions carried out by relatively small crowds (and that includes crowds numbering hundreds).

by Phuq Hedd Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:09

QUOTE:
Look, it really is time to stop fantasizing and start living in the real world. You got huge pre-publicity in the mainstream press and not only didn't you arrive mob-handed, you diminished the overall numbers. Did the state feel threatened? Not on your life!

ANSWER:
Given that that "pre-publicity" consisted of (R.Boyd-Barret, SWP/IAWM), (Sargent, GP), (Higgins O'Heochai, SP/IAWM), PANA, Labour etc emphasising the "violent" nature of GNAW's demonstration it would be fairer to call it a "pre-smear" by the wring-our-hands-and-denounce-evil brigade. Thanks for your help in diminishing the numbers. Notice who your comrades are? Although I was disappointed by the turn-out and disappointed by the stand-off I was heartened to see that more people turned out with the intention of explicitly conducting Direct Action than before.

QUOTE:
On the other hand, 100,000 people on the streets of Dublin dramatically changed the nature of discussion on Iraq and put the government on the defensive.

ANSWER:
OK, two things here: 1.Do you want to have a discussion and put the government on the defensive or do you want to stop the war? Because you haven't got much time to stop the war. It'd better be a feckin good discussion if it's going to do that. 2. Show me some support for the assertion that the nature of the discussion on Iraq changed dramatically as the result of 100,000 people on the streets?

by non-aligned peacenik Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:16

Is anyone else frightened at the level of delusion displayed by supporters of yesterday's DA cock-up?
Some of the arguments that the GNAW action was a success are truly mind-bending.
Swallow your convoluted idealogical pamphlet-speak, and come on back to reality before it's too late!

by person Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:20

Yeah, lets stop this war now! No more discussion! Lets do it!!

Emm...jasus, yeah, hmmm...What do we do now? Oh wait, I know - lets go pull down a fence. If we're lucky, a few hundred of us might get in and wreck a plane! Yeah, but how many planes have them Yanks got anyway? Probably more than one.

Direct action has its place, but it is millions on the streets across the globe that will stop this war. Millions.

by james Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:06

We,ve had our millions on the streets. What next?

by Phillip D Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:00

Yes James we have had our millions. This has given massive confidence to the thousends of workers that oppose this war and are now more willing to involve themselves on action on day X.

The next step for the IAWM is to build for day X. pass motions in your union branches, talk to workmates and friends. Get literature, discuss it and organise. ALL OUT ON DAY X!

by Anti Trot Action Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:26

"The next step for the IAWM is to build for day X. pass motions in your union branches, talk to workmates and friends. Get literature, discuss it and organise. ALL OUT ON DAY X!"

What a load of Trot nonsense. Yeah talk to your workmates, pass motions in your union branches - right on brother. You forgot to add "sell some papers and recruit naive kids to the cause"

Say no to the SWP/SP!

by Long live democracy Mon Mar 03, 2003 15:52

What's wrong with selling a paper. it raises money for your organisation and gets your ideas out to many people. Just because you do not have the belief in your ideas or the willingness to publish a regular paper you shouldn't slag other off who do.

What is wrong with winnign people over to your ideas and asking them to join your party? Surely one of the reasons we engage in politics is to win them over to our point of view. And what is wrong with people that hold similar views coming together and organising a party?

You should just shut up, you seem to be anti democracy as you want to stop peole selling papers, discussing with people and associating in political parties. You are proto fascist.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:39

ann mc swp full timer: Yesterday shows where the real active forces are in the anti-war movement. The peace vigil in Dublin only attracted 150 people. The Shannon GNAW 'occupation' attracted a similar amount, while the IAWM demonstration in Shannon attracted over 1000 people (if it wasnt for the media it would probably have been higher).

me:the WSM doesn't have a leadership though we do use our real names when we post !

the realitive numbers in my view ( and as reported by people from GNAW and backed by the two papers I read today - Star and Times) were about 6-800 IAWM AND 3-400 GNAW - obviously It would have been better if BOTH were bigger!

amsft: The GNAW leadership has to see that their 'actions' yesterday failed. The WSM lead organisation have proved that Anarchist methods are incapable of seriously challenging Capitalism and its State and winning the support of best activists and workers.

me: Interestingly, GNAW doesn't have a leadership either and the WSM are a very small group within it
- does give you an interesting view of how the "trotskyist mind" (if this isn't a contradiction or indeed a moron without the oxy) tends to work !

amsft:The GNAW 'occupation' failed becasue the leaders of the protest were more intent on forfilling the tenets of the ideology of anarchy. The GNAW leaders are all from the WSM, they are not elected and not accountable to the activists in the GNAW.

me: no leaders of GNAW - us small group within !

amsft:Unlike the leadership of the IAWM they are not elected and not accountable.

me: and who elected the leadership of the IAWM - were any of the 1XX,000 consulted ?

amsft:The task now for the anti-war movement is to build a genuinely mass and democratic anti-war movement. As we get nearer to war the failed tactics and methods of the Anarchist GNAW leadership and the weak pro-UN organisations (Labour, SF, Greens, PANA, etc) will be swept aside as ordinary people will want to get serious and get actively involved in an anti-war movement.

me: as will the be-cobwebbed loonies of the Leninist left !
- I think a real fighting mass movement would be a disaster for y'all !
Hey bit unfair to call the above pro - UN but I suppose they can defend them selves

good thoughts
by runner Sun, Mar 2 2003, 2:53pm

This fiasco is something to be learned from. we either stay together and work together or we get hanged by the garda and the emdia.

get a clue GNAW!

me:well we're the ones who AT ALL stages tried to negotiate with IAWM - their lack of solidarity and back biting, hysteria certainly contributed to the low turn out on the day - thanks "comrades"

This should be a time to put aside differences and work together - not this childish attempts of staeling the show from one another.

me: Agreed !

vil sun: in fact its worse because there is no structure to change the leadership that exists under the surface.

me:Not true all the decisions were taken at a delegate meeting in Galway - different groups had delegates on the day of the protest - thats democracry in action

pretty bird: There could have been tens of thousands at Shannon, but GNAW clearly has no interest in a mass movement.

me: I very, very much doubt it !

cian: All they have left is the deployment of even greater numbers of Gardaí and army. They are fast running out of options.

me:here here and we now know what their best is in terms of police numbers 400-600 max! - We can beat this

zEnd result was more like handbags at 10 paces. GNAW really looked silly. Hopefully these "virtual warriors" will stay in their "virtual world" and let the rest of us get onwith the job of building the anti-war movement

me: reasonable people realise when there facing unreasonable odds - we'll be back with bigger numbers and hopefully some real solidarity

paul g: Small crowds are easily faced down. I know that the GNAW position is that everybody else let you down and if only...if only...if only...if only...Power lies in mass mobilisations not Direct Actions carried out by relatively small crowds (and that includes crowds numbering hundreds).

me: power lies in mass direct action - mass direct action is built through solidarity!

conor

by Anti Trot Action Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:44

If you think that Trots and democracy have ANYTHING in common then you are sadly mistaken.

They are just bandwagon jumpers. IAWM, ANL, Anti Water Charges etc are all just covers for various Trot groups.

Personally I couldn't care less about the rights and wrongs of Direct Action or the anti war movement but I really hate Trots.

by me - in a personal capacity Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:56

If I hear one more post about GNAW damaging the movement....

Here's the story:
1) GNAW called the day of action on the 1st.

2) IAWM were invited to join and refused as they dont suppost direct action right now contrary to what they have said previously.

3) There should be room in any movement for people who believe in direct action, why could the IAWM not just join with the pink block or have their own march in solidarity?? It was always advertised as NON VIOLENT DA and that was what it was.

4) This could have been a far bigger march if it wasn't for the media hype and the parties who pulled out, not even bothering to figure out what GNAW is about.

5) No damage to the wider movement was done by GNAW as they tried to include and provide for all groups in their action.

6) The IAWM could have joined in the event or had a solidarity march in Dublin or something if they had the best interests of peace in mind. Just because one event occurred that wasn't organised by them there was no need to hijack it.

The IAWM march consisted of a bunch of red flags and paper-sellers, but people who are there with the same end in mind- peace. As I watched them go past and heard their 'stewards' shouting "stick with the main group" orders at marchers, I looked around the diverse, colourful and creative group by the fence and felt sad that people would listen to the biases of people like RBB and the Irish media in general and split and scaremonger when everyone should be focused on the real issue- stopping US planes from using Shannon.

by Aisling Mon Mar 03, 2003 16:57

Many people would support and take part in NVDA if it didn't involve property damage- occupation and blockading are much more effective techniques which can be used at Shannon or elsewhere. Also they are effective in that they disrupt work and cost the state money. I think such actions would attract many more people than Saturday's action did.

by Anti Anarchist Action Mon Mar 03, 2003 17:45

If you think that Anarchists and democracy have ANYTHING in common then you are sadly mistaken.

They are just bandwagon jumpers. GNAW, LAN, etc are all just covers for various Anarchist groups.

Personally I couldn't care less about the rights and wrongs of Direct Action or the anti war movement but I really hate Anarchists.

by zzzzzzzzzzzz Tue Mar 04, 2003 00:51

"VIRTUAL WORKERS SOLIDARITY"

by me - in a personal capacity Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:11

hey u ever been to a GNAW meeting?? Do you know how they work? Do you know anything about any anarchist organisations? Until you know anything first hand keep your bullshit to yourself.

Find me a more democratic way of holding meetings than the grassroots way. I've done studies on non heirarchical meeting structures and although they're not there yet, grassroots are doing well.

by Rob Tue Mar 04, 2003 15:03

a response to an earlier comment.

I knew exactly what was planned, I also knew that due to the scare mongering it would not be achieved by those involved. But something else was achieved which - in light of the scare tactics used by those wishing to divide and conquer the anti-war movement - was very helpful and communicated a clear message to the people dissuaded from attending . . . and I'm not going to spell it out for you again, if you wish to pose an alternative argument then do so, but think about what you say first.

by me - personal capacity Tue Mar 04, 2003 15:30

hey u ever been to a Socialist meeting?? Do you know how they work? Do you know anything about any socialist organisations? Until you
know anything first hand keep your bullshit to yourself.

Find me a more democratic way of holding meetings than the socialist way. I've done studies on non heirarchical meeting structures and
although they're not there yet, socialists are doing well.

by alois Tue Mar 04, 2003 20:15

i'm reluctant to say this because i don't want anyone in the anti-war movement to lose face; but i felt deeply, deeply let down on saturday, by whatever muppets were behind the fence strategy. me and my non-dublin comrades had been lukewarm about said plan from the start, i had given my two cents on it, i.e. i thought it was a total non-runner; we had our own ideas but we were all willing to support the fence plan as plan A, investing some misguided faith in those pushing it.

on the day, impressed that people were still willing to go through with it, i linked arms. i wouldn't be found wanting in my support of direct action on the day. but i sure as hell wasn't going to spark it off; i felt that was the job of those who had been behind the strategy. but instead, they just ran around with megaphones, or i don't know what they did, but they left us, the front line, standing there, doing the fucking can-can like spare pricks.

by the time the fence strategy had fizzled out after a last, desperate push, people had been arrested and the moment was gone for any other action.

by the time of the closing, self-congratulatory speeches, a speaker was lamenting the fact that only a few had been arrested, and imploring us that we all had to be willing to make that leap; excuse me? how many people were on that line? it wasn't their fault the action had fizzled out. what a waste.

maybe it had all been a propaganda stunt. or maybe those w.s.m. heads actually believed that if they talked it up enough, the masses would just storm the fence, like they'd seen in some film.

haven't lost faith in direct action, think i've lost faith in GNAW though.

by Andrew Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:42

There are I think two serious points raised in the article and responses which I will respond to

1. Alois from 'outside Dublin' seems to be under the impression that it was up to the people with megaphones (which included me) to kick something off. This is wrong for a couple of reasons
a) The agreement was that the action would be non-violent, so once it was clear we were outnumbered we were hardly going to try and trick people into breaking this. In the end we tried to our manoveure the cops but rather then announcing this on the megaphone (for obvious reasons) we went up and down the line telling people to 'pass it on' to those on either side of them.
b) There were meant to be delegates to decide how to react to the unexpected from the different regional groups. For reasons being discussed on the GNAW list this broke down on the day and so our ability to make decisions went out the window. We basically followed through the agreed plan at the end of the day (i.e. tried to get through the fence) for lack of other alternatives.

2. There seems to be some expectection that every WSM member should have been ordered into the front line. That's not how we work, our members like everyone else there were free to choose whether they went with pink or white. One who has potential outstanding charges for previous Shannon actions AND just got acquitted for another case was strongly advised to go with pink by the rest of us.

For what it is worth 80% of the WSM members there were with the white line and half of them were flag carriers and so up the front of things for the march and inital advance to the cop line. Once things quietened down some of the flag carriers (who were also delegates) dropped out of the line to organise stuff and, with other delegates, try to agree what should happen next. Seeing as the cops were threatening to do some of the flag carriers for conspiracy it's hardly the case that this was a 'safer' position.

GNAW has no leadership positions at all, we work by delegating people to fulfill particular tasks for which they are mandated. I was one of the four Dublin spokespeople so I was delegated to talk to the press. Others were delegated to organise legal observers etc. A minority of the delegates were members of the WSM.

A rather exhaustive analysis of events, including the problems people had on the day is in progress on the GNAW mailing lists. GNAW is unique among the anti-war movements in giving all members equal access to these discussions.

by cait Wed Mar 05, 2003 16:47

i'm sick and tired of the elitist attitudes of activists from the IAWM, GNAW and other. presumably we're all fighting for the same cause - to stop a war. we may not always agree with each other on the best way to go about it, but surely we can accept that there is room for every political opinion, every level of activism or inactivism, every age, race, religion and so forth. the GNAW has every right to organise whatever occupation or action they want, and organise it however they wish, and they provide a legitimate outlet for anti-war activists around the country to express their views. same goes for any non-direct action group who wishes to mobilise. like i said, we're all fighting for the same cause, and bitching about each other and tearing rival groups apart on some website isn't going to get us anywhere. if it's the bad media coverage that direct action attracts then hang the fucking media, they're to blame. not the activists. grow up, all of you. there are more important things at stake here than your precious egos and inter-party politics.

by Rob Wed Mar 05, 2003 17:00

It's gone on too long now, agree with the sentiment and support a variety of tactics - you'll never get massive numbers to continuously and wholeheatedly endorse one way without others wish to do it differently, whatever you think is right or wrong. This bickering can only lead to division, it's now time to build from the argument and move on.

by Intransigent Sun Mar 09, 2003 02:35

Do you remember Kronstadt? Anti everything guy I'm gonna get your head and put it on a stick! Forget dolphin friendly tuna. I want tuna friendly dolphin!