The Scum Also sinks Lower

by frothing at the mouth Mon Apr 07, 2003 16:32

in a james larkin pose at the GPO if poss?

by John - ISN Mon Apr 07, 2003 16:25

I am not interested in a discussion on the pro's and con's of painting Ms Larkin's bikini line 'treatment' centre but what I am interested in is the fact that Mr Boyd Barrett decided that IAWM thought it "inappropiate". When was this decision made? RBB has been running amok ii the name of the IAWM. He has controlled all media events, addressed all public large demonstrations and generally used the IAWM for raising his own profile. I think we should change the IAWM name to the Irish AppaRATchik War Manipulators.

John O'Neill

by independent Mon Apr 07, 2003 15:13

The SWP is not interested in opposing the war. That's not because they are not against the war, they are. But they don't believe that we can successfully oppose the war. They believe that we can only win when the SWP Party cadre will replace the pro-capiatlist politicians. They will be the true representative of the workers and we will all live in peace and harmony. We will all hail our beloved leaders, Richard & co., at Sunday rallies. Anarchists will be denied freedom of speech, go to the annual Marxist conference to see what I mean, so there will be no problem. I know it sounds moronic, but that's what RBB& co genuinely believe.

by Badman Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:49

Bush flies in....

meanwhile thousands of activists from all the anti-war groups in the country mobilise to meet him.

Friday night drinking goes on....

meanwhile dozens of activists engage in civil disobedience all over the city by graffiting prominent sites associated with the criminal Ahern regime.

You see it's not either/or. Nobody is saying that this type of thing should be all that anti-war people do, just saying that it is something that people can do as well as doing all the other stuff. Of course if you are a control freak leninist in the SWP, any action that has not been ordered by centcom is a threat to the Trotskyist regime of the IAWM. This is why you'll help the police and state in their efforts to criminalise anybody who goes beyond the ultra-conservative actions of the trotskyists.

I'm starting to get a clearer idea of the SWP/SP strategy for r-r-revolution.
1. Have a big march asking for the dail to introduce legislation legalising revolution.
2. Repeat step one until succesful.
3. Carry out revolution in accordance with the provisions of the law.

by Joe Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:45

'Irony is dead' who posts above is a member of the SWP. Yet again we see the SWP attacking other sections of the anti-war movements (In the Irish Times this time) and then whinging when they are called to account on indymedia for this.

As to whether protesting a couple of miles from Hillsborough will have a greater, lesser or equal effect to graffiti on Berties partners business will have more impact, who knows? I suspect neither amounts to a whole hill of beans on their own. But unlike the SWP I don't see the need to counterpoise one tactic to another - people can and probably are doing both.

Worth asking, why do the SWP (and lets not pretend Dick takes his instructions from the IAWM) feel the need to insist on 'one true action'? Why do the feel this need to attack everything they can't claim credit for?

by Jackie Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:41

THE ANTI WAR PEOPLE WANT TO TURN IRELAND INTO IRAQ….. WHERE EVERYONE WHO WAVES AT BERTIE OR AN AMERICAN PLANE IS A LEGITIMATE TARGET!

ITS LIKE THE 1930’s WITH OUT HITTLER

by Max Dempsey Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:37

I'm sure Ms. Larkin was very pleased with the free pr, however I don't believe she was a legitimate target, unless it’s ok to target the families of politicians?

In which case, when some right winger gets pissed off with the constant breechs of the law and “out of frustration” then goes and takes it in to his own hands, by burning down some pro-Saddamer’s flat with his girlfriend and their kids inside… then don’t come whining to us, remember they were legitimate targets….

by Irony is dead Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:30

Meanwhile muppets paint the walls of Larkins shop. Another blow against the US/UK killing machine?

by ROB Mon Apr 07, 2003 14:04

As discussions go on anti war strategy, direction and encouraging growth this has to be the stupidist thread of argument I have yet seen . . . anywhere! She'll have her walls washed same as anyone else, right or wrong it won't last long put your energies into something productive people . . . Christ almighty lads CELIA LARKIN, who fucking cares!!!

( . . . talk about scraping the bottom of the barrell.)

by Badman Mon Apr 07, 2003 13:10

It was carried out by anti-war activists as part of a series of graffiti actions. FF head office, PD head office, Mcdowell, Callely, Ryan, Haughey, the Irish stock exchange & central bank were also targeted on Friday night, among other places. Bertie's clinic was hit on day X.

Celia has built her persona on her relationship with Bertie. She's had the roses, time for the shit that goes with it.

by Virtual Warrior Mon Apr 07, 2003 13:09

You know well it was done by genuine anti war activists.

by P Mon Apr 07, 2003 13:04

I do think it was inappropriate to target her, because she is not directly
involved in the politics. There were hundreds of other nearer people and organisations.

I would go so far as to say it was done by elements within the establishment to smear
the anti-war campaign and cause division.

by PK Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:51

..ask yourself a simple question are the innocent people of Iraq needlessly dying because of the folly of Bush and Blair and the complicity of Bertie.

CL has made her fortune by her high publicity photo-ops with Bertie. If it wasn't for this relationship would she have been writing in a daily newspaper and have had that slot on a tv show. The action on Friday by the looks of it turned it into another publicity op as the Indo seemeed to be oblivious to much more deserving news when splashing it all over the front page.

Don't often agree with the Shinners but they were right in saying that not much damage was done and that this peaceful protest shows the strong feelings people have against this war.

It's unfortunate that RBB feels the need to pander to the bourgeoisie. What's more worrying though is the question about the internal democracy of the IAWM.
Was RBB speaking for it when issuing the condemnation.

by Virtual Warrior Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:48

She is an image consultant not just a beautician. She advises people on a holistic public image. Using skills she honed whilst paid out of the public purse.

She attends practically every FF and State function that Bertie does. She uses these occasions to tout for business and raise the profile of her business.

She is a FF member and activist. Her business is just as much a legitimate target as FF member Staffords Top Oil is.

The hypocrisy of the SWP here is sickening.

by Pro War Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:42

And not at a tiny meeting packed with SWP members. However I'm glad to see RBB keeping up the good work of making sure most of those in the anti-war movement respect the law. The more bad feeling he creates while doing so the better!

by King Cop - special branch Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:24

In fact richard was elected at the october conference of the iawm attended by eighty anti war activists, themselves representing anti-war groups around the country and organisations opposed to the war. Please get your facts right before launching into the predictable slanderous sectarian rants.

by E - SWP Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:20

..ask yourself a simple question is Celia Larkin in anyway involved with the decision to allow US troops though Shannon? No. But her partner Bertie Ahern is most directly involved and deserves to be hounded whenever he goes or at his clincs. So unless we begin to target the family members or partners etc of cabinet members then she should be left alone to be honest. She herself could be antiwar, who knows?

by Intransigent Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:19

Berite Ahern did not act on behalf of the people when he voted in favour of the continued use of Shannon by US military. I'm all in favour of attacking him personally if it was his shop. Celia is his partner. It is a personal attack on Ahern but I'm not so sure that it was the appropriate one. His constituency office, yeah. His home, yeah. But this one is a little tricky. Celia doesn't do his press releases or speak on behalf of him. She's not smart enough. But I'm just unsure on this one. Maybe you could give me your logical reasoning behind the attack and I may be easily persuaded.