This war is right / Failure of Indymedia

by kokomero Tue Apr 01, 2003 19:04

I'm not afraid of their arguments. The problem is that reading their dirge and responding to it takes a lot of time and they never get the message anyway. Sometimes it would be easier if they went off and posted on some other site.

by Gaillimhed Tue Apr 01, 2003 14:04

Kokomero, why are you afraid of their arguments? You know they're wrong! come on man, are you 'blaming' me for inviting alternative (and less palatable) views to this forum? I dont Like Avi H, right winger, pro liberation group and the rest of that crowd but i think were running for cover if we abuse them and discourage them from posting.
Thats all, i dont support their views, just their right to be heard.

by kokomero Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:21

I'm sure Gallimhed & the right-wing must be delighted by the number of right-wing posts since yesterday.

There are so many of them in fact that it looks like a concerted campaign to swamp this site in right-wing propaganda.

I hope you're happy now!

by Gall McMorna Tue Apr 01, 2003 00:13

US/K owns Ireland, North and South. And also the minds of most Irish people, even the minds of some active in the anti-war movement.

by Right Winger Mon Mar 31, 2003 21:56

There is no point. There is no tolerance from the left, there is no openness to different viewpoints, there is no room for error or understanding that someone else may be right. I read Indymedia because it reminds me how screwed up the left is. I wish it was not so. As long as Indymedia is dominated by sectarian and narrowminded propagandists it will stay mired in the same narrow view point. That is fine for those who subscribe to that view but as you all know that view is not a view shared by a majority of people, including those who have turned out to the recent anti-war rallies. If you really want to broaden your base you will have to broaden your minds.

Cue the expected insults and backlashes. Have at it because I won't be posting again.

by zogling Mon Mar 31, 2003 21:14

This war is for zionism.
www.duke.org

Lefties helped cause war by their stupid slogans about oil, which the average person subconsciously atleast would have no problem supporting a war for.

by amazon - ccc Mon Mar 31, 2003 17:26 hleeck at indigo dot ie 5,PatrickPearse tower 8422666

I appreciate WAR SUPPORTEREs comment...but they are intellectually flawed and he mixes up one thing ith another: the fact that leftwingers post here mainly is just a reflection of the site. the fact that saddam hussein is undisputed by just about any antiwar protester I have ever met. the assumption that bloody bush and Blair have any interest in 'liberating ' Iraq is prepoasterous. They could ve done it 12 yrs. ago. tell me war Supporter WHY NOW ? Any answer to that. where is the liberation at i nAfganistan now ? how successsful (I.E. Osama bin Laden 0 were the USA in fighting terrorism? Isn t the most likely out come of all this : 1.more ...terrorist acts of desperation
2. a totao sidelining of the UN, which should be effectively representing all nations. #.how do you want to addresss the fact that the UN sec.Council is so utterly unreprsentatove of the global community ?
What about the not quite so unimpotant fact and undisputable! that as we speak....thousands of innocent ordinary and not so ordinary people are being killed, clusterbombed, starved thirsted out of their mind ( that is yr "liberation effort ?)...as we e mail ?

Harriet

by kokomero Mon Mar 31, 2003 17:05

I see little or no promotion of left-wing ideology on this site. Most of the posting in my opinion is issue driven as opposed to being ideology driven. There is certainly a low tolerance for the accepted view promulgated in the mass media, but this is hardly surprising given how much of this we hear in any case. This lack of tolerance naturally reflects back onto individuals such as Avi.

by srupido Mon Mar 31, 2003 17:00

Bush and Blair are callous and very evil men, using 'war supporters' logic we should be trying to kill these monsters who are oppressing the Iraqi people.

by Andrew Mon Mar 31, 2003 16:03

Well firstly as you point out indymedia is defined by those who post to it. There are a number of regular right wing posters (eg Avi) but IMHO they demonstrate why so few right wingers post. The right already has a near monopoly of the media - that's why all Avi ever does is post articles from various mainstream media. Why would they go to the bother of writing for the few hundred regular Indymedia readers when they know the likes of the Sunday Independant reaches over 100,000.

Indymedia is of value for the organised left because in the cases of the groups that only sell material (SWP) the indymedia readership is greater then the normal readership of their publications. And even for those who have some free distribution material (WSM, SP) the indymedia readership is probably another 5-10%.

I don't think that criticism of articles is the reason so few right wingers post. If anything left material tends to be shredded much more effectivly, partly because few of us bother responding to reposts of mainstream material.

by Gaillimhed Mon Mar 31, 2003 15:53

According to 'war supporter':
"...Indymedia promotes left wing ideology in a biased way. This site needs more interaction with right wing ideology in order to become a balanced news source with balanced debate.."
Avi H. seems to be the only right winger crazy enough to post regularily on indymedia, and when he does he is slandered and viciously abused, and told to post elsewhere. hardly the pillar of 'open mindedness' are we?. Although i dont want to see indymedia corrupted by Rightwing politics, it does need some balance to address the corruption by hard-left politics (eg SWP vs SP Mud-Wrestle). Of course Indymedia content is dependent on who cares to post here and that tends to be more left-wing types, but the problem is that when anyone with an alternative perception (truth is perception, perception is truth) posts here they get chased off by those who believe they have a monopoly on the truth. If we really want to explore situations fully we need to listen to people like Avi H. Otherwise we coral ourselves away with no access to ideas other than our own (presumably right and inviolable) truths. you dont have to like what the Right-wingers have to say but you have to try and understand it, only possible if we listen. And you never know you might just find out that some of our own opinions might'nt be perfect either.

by fodder for the battlefields Mon Mar 31, 2003 15:48

We can be loyal to our countries and support our soldiers best by demanding they are returned home now, safely and not be forced to fight and die for oil. This war is not about soddem, or liberating iraqis, it is about sending our men into someone else's country to kill and murder iraqi civillians indiscriminately and our own coalition soldiers in so called friendly fire incidents, just for governments greedy for oil and to test out their latest weapons. Even iraqis opposed to soddem had no idea that they were suddenly going to be bombed and attacked indiscriminately. If that is called freeing them, I dread to think what we would call attacking them. We need to restore democracy in our own countries nevermind worry about other people's countries. Blair needs to listen to the majority of people in britain who do not want pointless wars and unnecessary mayhem in far off foreign soils.

by kokomero Mon Mar 31, 2003 15:38

War supporter has obviously read the Idiots guide to World Domination cover to cover. Like many people who are against the war I am also against Saddam and the unholy US/K alliance.

The Iraqi people can and will free themselves given the chance. They do not need the US/K to do it for them as the Romanians did not need any help getting rid of Ceaucescu.

In case you hadn't noticed WS (maybe that should be BS), people have been freeing themselves from tyrants for millenia.

If they do it themselves then the ensuing regieme may not be what the west likes but it will surely be more representative and durable than whatever the Brits decide to install this time round ...

Remember they were the ones who were "in charge" of the middle east in the period between WWI and WWII and look where that got us!

by War supporter Mon Mar 31, 2003 15:25

Do not have time to respond to the above comments right now but I will have by this time tomorrow if not sooner.

Record the page, ie:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=39316

if you wish see my response to your comments.

by ipsiphi iosaf o as if Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:58

i have not ever suggested it be used by a war supporter.
US/K means something.
so don't use it badly or the witchy stuff will get you!

by Matthew Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:57

"think about what the people of Iraq want".

The unstaged TV pictures speak from themselves. The Iraqis are well used to being "liberated" by foreigners, whether they be Ottomans or British. The Iraqi people want the invaders out. A known Iraqi tyrant is preferable to them than an unknown expatriate Iraqi stooge or a US military governor.

"Do anti-war people even "consider" the "possibility" that this war "may" be the right thing to do for the Iraqi people, in order to get rid of that brutal tyrant?"

The right thing for Iraqis. Let the Iraqis decide, I say. The vile dictatorships of Indonesia, Philippines and apartheid South Africa were toppled by people power when the people themselves deemed the time to be right *for them*.

Do pro-war people never realise that this war *may* set precedents and have consequences far beyond Iraq. That the USA and the West will ultimately suffer. At the end of the day the reasons for going to war won't be remembered by Arabs, they will only remember the images of foreigners interfering in their affairs and killing their brothers.

by Eoin O'M. Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:53

...forgot to mention: this war is not about getting rid of Saddam, that could have been done years back. Stay on side...

by Eoin O'M. Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:52

I thought about trying to put together a coherent and thoughtful rejoinder to your legitimate concerns but the first paragraph of the mission statement says it best:

"The Independent Media Centre is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity."

I would like you to note the words radical and efforts to free humanity. If by balance you mean like the BBC or CNN then go to their sites, you'll get balance alright. As for engaging with right wing opinion, write a few letters to the Irish Times. I am sometimes frustrated with IMC.ie as well but it is the only outlet available to those with something other than yes, yes, yes to say. I am trying to bite my tongue avoid jumping down your throat here but stay on board, this current heavy posting with the war will subside just like the mainstream media does.

by Glen Moran Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:41

Good lord you're right! up until now I don't think it had occured to anyone that Saddam was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed from power for the good of his own people.

If's not "right" to kill innocent people for the sake of oil (even if a side effect is the death of a tyrant), it's not "right" to replace the iraqi government with an american puppet (unless of course the US sets up democratic elections - some hope). It's not "right" to flatten a nation to "liberate" it from taliban leaders and not put a penny towards rebuilding it. It's not "right" to have planned the war for ten years before executing it. It's not "right" to engage in a combat where you're killing more UK troops than the enemy is.

The list goes on. War is never "Right", sometimes it may seem necessary but that's not even the case here.