An article every terrorist-supporting Indymedia-moron should read.

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:09

You are a supporter of the Israeli terrorists who killed 2 civilians including a child when they tried to kill the Hamas leader. The Israeli terrorists then went on to shell a residential area and killed 3 people. After the suicide bombing, the Israeli terrorists carried out attacks which killed 9 people.

No, actually I dont support suicide bombings on civilian targets. But at least the bombers make the ultimate sacrifice. The brave Israelis sit in their tanks and copters as they rain death down on children.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:17

Not only do you immediately alienate the people you're trying to convince, by calling them morons, you go on to link to an article that shows that 700 Israelis have been killed in the last three years, compared to over 2,000 Palestinians. Not only that, but while most of the Israeli casualties are non-combatants, they are still far outnumbered by the number of Palestinian non-coms killed by the Israelis.
With supporters like you, Israel doesn't need critics...

by Anti-Terrorist Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:31

Pat, I agree with you that the isreali army are scum. This is accepted by most sane people.

However I think you are not clear on your attitude to suicide bombers. I can understand what drives them to do what they do, BUT I do not support them in any way. Suicide bombers are counter-productive and regressive for the workers movement.

The answer in Isreal and Palestine is not individual terror in the form of unaccountable and undemocratic suicide bombers. It is mass action and workers unity between Israeli and Palestinan workers.

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:50

Are meaningless phrases when you are confronted with the reality of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. There is also the fact that Arabs are second class citizens in the state of Israel and Arabs who were etnically cleansed are denied the right of return.

I have made it clear that I do not agree with suicide bombings or any targetting of Civilians. But this struggle will continue as long as Israeli sttlers remain in Gaza & the West Bank.

by Pat C is an IRA/FARC-supporting scumbag Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:53

Pat C once stated that he didn't think the IRA or FARC scumbags weren't terrorist organisations. He's obviously a person of seriously low intelligence.

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:06

I'm dumb! Thats why I upset you fuckwits so much!
You are so patethic you have to drag the North and Colombia into the thread instead of dealing with Occupied Palestine.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part.

by Cat P Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:31

Dont mind Pat he is your typical all-talk-no-action barstool republican. he goes on about the 'blood sacrifice' and the 'noble actions of the gaelic warriors of the IRA'.

we all know where pat stands- he was seen many a time with sinn fein plackards on the anti-war demos.

his all-talk-no-action philosophy also extends to his trade union apparently.

by David Rynne Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:45

Sorry for interfering in this little "discussion" but trolls really piss me off. If you believe something stand the fuck up and stand by what you say. Geurilla slagging matches make schoolyard bullies look like master debaters. (hehe)
Whoever you are, If you don't like this Pat C guy use your name and tell him face to face. If you're anonymous then it can only lead people to assume that you're a two faced shit who'll shake his hand at a demonstration and stab him in the back on indymedia.
If you're not gonna use your name at least pick a recognisable handle and stick to it. Be more responsible, grow up and let your words and actions have consequences for you other than just dragging IMC into a quagmire of personal abuse because whatever you believe will have no credibility until you can show some degree of integrity

by Troll spotter Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:30

They make the same points that members of the SP have made on previous indymedia rows with Pat C. They seem to have it in for him for some reason.

by Cleaver Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:42

A chance to properly debate the current situation in Palastine is being lost because people have to drag personal insults into it, maybe these comments could be deleted so the important thread won't be lost. The original posters name 'indymedia = juvenille & uninformed unfortunatly been proved right.

by Mags Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:55

A friend of mine is going out to Palestine soon and I was asking him to please send back regular reports and I would circulate them, including on Indymedia, to keep people updated.

I am beginning to have second thoughts now, if this is what serious news stories and debates descend into. 26 people have died in Palestine and Israel over the past 24 hours and all we get is complete fucking drivel from morons, using the issue as a stick to beat someone they don't like.

David (above) makes good points. Can people please post with either their real name or a recognisable nickname. Don't come the old 'security - police eternally tracking me' shite. If you have any political credibility people will recognise you and support (or reject) your views on that basis.

I know Pat C BTW, he may talk incredible amounts of codswallop when inebriated :) :), but I have never heard him hold forth on 'Gaelic warriors', or such topics. Get a grip, for Gods sake.

by Tony Dillon Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:56

Sharon has learned nothing since his death-squad days as the head of the Israeli army terrorist Unit 101, most infamous for its destruction of the Arab village of Qibya where he was responsible for the slaughter of 68 men, women and children. The old “soldier” proudly confirms his depravity in his autobiography, blowing up the houses with the families trapped inside, as the snipers positioned around the village picked off the stragglers, an old IDF Sonderkommando speciality.

The State of Israel has learned precious little since its own bloody birth with the Hagannah terrorist campaign against the one time British colonial masters of the region. Former prime minister Menachim Begin is revered as a freedom fighter by the people of Israel, leader in fact of the Jewish Irgun terrorist organisation. Among his statesman like activities for the cause of Israeli freedom, is the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1948, killing more than 90 innocent people, but one terrorist act of one of the most illustrious sons of Israel and to this day the greatest single act of terror carried out in Palestine.

The only apparent difference between that undeniable act of terrorism, and that of a teenage Palestinian suicide bomber, is that the suicide bomber ( like the Kamikaze fighter of the second World War ) has the conviction / rage / courage / hate (whatever you want to call it ) to sacrifice his life in the act of killing his victims. These modern day ambulatory human bombs, the most lethal weapon yet in man’s arsenal, the Palestinian answer to Israel’s bulldozers and America’s Patriots and Apaches, paradoxically illustrate for all the world in a flash, the absolute desperation and determination of the Palestinian people to survive. These suicide kids believe they are left with no future and no other option in this tragic and needless war. Before you judge them, ask the same question about amok running high school kids in the US or Germany who murder half a classroom. What could provoke such rage in Happy Valley? Palestinians might ask you what your children are fighting against. Who bulldozed those Colorado kids’ homes and pools, imprisoned their brothers, stole their family’s land, murdered their parents?

In all-out war innocent civilians have never been spared. The cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, El Arish, Shatila, Sabra, Jenin and the carpet bombing, napalming and chemical poisoning of Vietnam with Agent Orange dioxin amply testify to that. The goal is simple, “to inflict the most mortal damage on the other side possible”. Of the destructiveness of human nature there is indeed no doubt in the rest of the world.

Either all violence (be it state sposonered and sanctioned murder) is wrong or all violence is as human as love and hate and therefore normal. To apologise for Israel's "targeted killings" and to condemn Palestine's "revenge taking"is surely the most stupid and hypocritical attitude of all.

Personally I see it is the responsibility of the US to call a halt to the ME bloodbath, something that it is incapable and unwilling to do in the light of the Bush military barbarism spreading like a plague from Washington.

T Dillon

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:59

The guy who started the 'debate' started by insulting people (not to mention the fact that the four sentences in the original post are all minor variations of each other). If I was to delete the stuff with personal insults I'd start there.

by Cleo Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:07

The innocent Israeli civillians blown up by right wing islamic extremist Hamas group, did not deserve to die, at the same time innocent palestinians civillians killed in the retaliatory Israeli IDF raids don't deserve to die either. We have innocent Israeli and palestinians slaughtered in tit for tat attacks by right wing Hamas muslim fanatics and right wing IDF israeli junta.

People need to stop and think what reward does all this bloodshed and loss of innocent Israeli and Palestinian civillians lives bring. Its ok if both armed militia right wing Israeli and Hamas groups want to senselessly slaughter each other, but leave innocent Israeli and Palestinians civilians out of their bloodbath please.

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:25

Ok billy goats, if an SP member was posting they'd ID themselves.
If you want our actual take on Israel/Palestine take a look at the website of our sister organisation in Israel.

http://www.maavak.org.il/english/

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:28

So _all_ of the SP people posting on indymedia identify themselves as such? How do you know?

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:32

Why wouldn't we if we are arguing the position of the Party as was suggested above?
No one challenged Pat when he claimed the posters were SP members. No-one said where is your proof but as usual the minute one of us comes on you make it your priority to attack us. Your not Neil Kinnock are you?

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:37

On numerous occasions when I have disagreed with the SP, personalised abuse starts up. Coincidence? Yeah! Did the Easter Bunny bring eggs to all the good (obeying the party line) SY members?

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:39

I wasnt the one who originally said the posters were in the SP.

by Durutti Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:42

What do the SP Left Opposition think of the SP line on Israel/Palestine?

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:43

Posters hide behind made-up names so they can dissociate themselves from their comments. Since so much of this goes on, the rest of us have to decide which party these anonymous posters are likely to be members of. When they come out when versions of SP positions, attacks on people who've criticised the SP, and formulations similar to those used by SP members, the natural guess is that they are in fact SP members. But you say they're not, so of course they can't possibly be...

I don't seek out opportunities to criticise the SP on here. Even if I did, it doesn't really compare to criticising other anti-war protesters on national radio (like the spokesperson for the IAWM, of which the SP was a member).
Or attacking anti-war protesters from the platform of a demonstration, at the exact moment that they were being arrested by the cops (as Joe Higgins did).
Or attacking other anti-capitalist demonstrators in the pages of the Irish Times (as your member did in Evian).

You obviously learned a lot from Kinnock.

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:00

These issues have been dealt with at length but like a tabloid hack you continue to broadcast the same criticisms over and over again.
Oh sorry, I forgot you are actually a bearer of truth shining a lighton te terrible crimes of the Leninists.

by kokomero Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:07

According to Pat D,

we're supposed to accept this analysis from the ICT (Institute for Counter Terrorism) on face value?

Looking at their webpage they don't exactly come across as unbiased with their director being the former head of Mossad Shabtai Shavit. Their board also includes:

General (Ret.) Yanush Ben-Gal of Israel Aircraft Industries ,

General (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit former Head of IDF Military Intelligence and co-ordinator of Government operations in the Administered Territories,

Carmi Gillon former Head of General Security Services,

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Yigal Pressler former Advisor to the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism

Major General (Ret.) Eli Zeira former Director of Military Intelligence, IDF

A whos-who of the Israeli military-industrial complex!

Given this make-up it is hardly surprising that their "report" (read spin) attempts to define all but 16.7% of Palestinians (fig 2.9) as combatants/potential combatants for the purpose of leveling the 3:1 kill-ratio in favour of the Israelis.

Not content with this they "show" how they kill almost no Palestinian women, and the Palestinians actually lead the Israelis in killing women aged greater than 45.

This rubbish is pretty much typical of Israeli behaviour where they are more interested in managing public opinion while accepting a level of violence as a price for occupation.

This behaviour is typified by Sharons attack on the Hammas spokesman the other day. Sharon, of all people, after provoking the current Intifada with an ill-advised visit to the mosque in Jerusalem, must have known and implicitly accepted the likely reaction to such an attack.

He undoubtedly planned it as a way of walking away from the roadmap when he didn't get buy in from his ultra-zionist partners in government.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:09

I've repeatedly asked for evidence of the BB allegations. No evidence is forthcoming, and yet the allegations continue.
If you want to assert that I have a pattern of hounding SP members on IMC I think its fair enough to point out that the SP have a pattern of using public platforms and the capitalist media to attack other activists.
But if you want to keep comparing me to Kinnock, or a tabloid hack, go right ahead. I can think of other parallels for your behaviour.

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:30

You're also good at evading the real issues, blowing small instances out of proportion and tearing quotes out of their context.

On the actual issue under discussion, of course this piece comes from an incredibly biased sourse. Suicide bombing, while I would not support it and I think it is counter-productive, is the result of desperation on the part of the Palestinians and unlikely as workers unity looks under these circumstances it is the only way there will be a lasting peace in the middle east.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:43

In the last week, OK - SP has five times in two threads alleged that the Black Block in Genoa was infiltrated by the police. Every time he says this he's asked for proof. Every time, he ignores the demand, and then repeats the allegation. But I am evading issues.

As for 'tearing quotes out of context' - does it matter if the SP supports the quotes, with or without any context. Since OK hasn't answered these questions, maybe you will -

"The SP member we're discussing is quoted in the media criticising the Black Block, not the police. Is that because he spent most of the interview criticising the BB, or because he's too stupid to know how to deal with the media? Do you agree that he should not have made the statements quoted?

Second, where is this evidence? Its getting to be like the WMDs at this stage. You keep making this allegation, but you keep failing to substantiate it. Saying that evidence exists 'somewhere' is like saying that Iraq has anthrax 'somewhere'. Either point it out, or shut up.

Finally, if you're just saying that every contingent on the march was infiltrated by the police, would you be happy for me to repeatedly assert that "Everybody knows - and SP members admit - that the CWI contingents in the summit demonstrations are heavily infiltrated by the police"? If not, why not? If I was being interviewed by the Irish Times, what would your reaction be if that quote appeared?"

by Mark - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:10

Again your comprehension skills leave something to be desired. The point about saying the BB are infiltrated by the police is that because of the nature of it, agent provoateurs are in a position to influence its actions. In fact by saying this Mathew IS blaming the police for the violence while saying that the BB tactics allow them to do so. If police infiltrators in the CWI contingent tried to instigate mindless acts of vandalism theyd be kicked out.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:15

Over and over again.
I ask for evidence that the BB was infiltrated by the police. An SP member replies, doesn't provide any evidence, but just repeats the allegation again.

Still, I shouldn't be surprised. Its widely accepted that the leading lights of the SP are paid police informers, and that one of the requirements for new members is that they bash their head off a concrete wall until they collapse unconscious. I know people who've seen them do it.

by OK - SP Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:57

There are eyewitness accounts of police agents in the Black Block in Genoa. Some BBers (obviously police) were seen chatting away to other cops.

This is an eyewitness account and is evidence.

by Magneto Thu Jun 12, 2003 15:59

Meir Vilner, 84, Israeli Communist Leader, Dies
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ERUSALEM, June 6 — Meir Vilner, the last living signatory of Israel's Declaration of Independence, has died. He was 84.

Mr. Vilner died on Thursday of natural causes, said his eldest son, Doron Vilner.

Mr. Vilner served as secretary general of Israel's Communist Party from 1965 to 1988. He led the party through a number of transformations, from the Communist Party of Israel and finally to the creation of Hadash, the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality.

All the while, he remained committed to the idea of Jewish and Arab coexistence, said Tamar Gozansky, a former leader of Hadash.

Mr. Vilner was instrumental in getting the party to adopt a platform in 1965 saying that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must consider the rights of both nations, something the United Nations only adopted later down the road, Mr. Gozansky noted.

Born Meir Kovno in Vilna, Poland, in 1918, Mr. Vilner came to Jerusalem in 1938 to study history at the Hebrew University, and he became involved with the then-underground Communist Party of Palestine.

He adopted the alias of Vilner, and he eventually changed his name officially after the Communist Party was legalized.

He is survived by Doron Vilner and another son.

by pat c Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:03

Who saw them? How did they know they were BB?

This is all just so much gossip. If the SP/CWI have REAL evidence then there is a duty on them to publicly reveal this at a forum wherby it can be independently assessed.

In the Irish context this would mean asking the ICCL and Amnesty to vet the evidence and to publish the outcome of the vetting.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:03

If yes, then where and when did this take place?
How exactly were the 'BBers' dressed?
Do you have any corroborative evidence?

If you are not the eyewitness, then it it not evidence. Its unsubstantiated hearsay. Otherwise known as 'rumour'. More appropriately termed 'bullshit'.

by Joe Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:06

OK you saying 'there is an eyewitness report' is NOT evidence. It is heresay. Someone saying 'This is what I saw' would be an eyewitness report and we could then question them about this.

Even a drunken judege understands why 'so and so said to me that he saw...' is not evidence.

Legalise aside to date ALL the 'evidence' produced to date has turned out to be of plainclothes cops rather then cops even dressed in a black bloc style. Just like the stalinists twisted vague evidence to make it look like trots collaborated with fascists so too the SP plays the same game here. Your politics stinks of the gulag.

by Ray Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:15

hear·say
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

As in, "Of course I can prove Joe Higgins and Mary Harney are having an affair. Someone I know saw them shagging in the Dail chamber. That's EYEWITNESS testimony."

by ipsiphi Thu Jun 12, 2003 16:43

it does not make pleasant reading.

by curious Thu Jun 12, 2003 19:13

What is a "scumbag" I've heard this term so often, is it a bag for containing soup scum?

by JAC Thu Jun 12, 2003 19:18

There is no inocent Zionist. Let them go home to Europe, Morocco, USA, Britain,South Africa, South Africa, Russia, Ethiopia or which ever hole Zionists come from.

by Give it a rest Thu Jun 12, 2003 19:33

Why does everything have to degenerate into a slagging match between the SP and the rest?

I am sure that some SP members post anonimous comments just as I am sure that some people that are not members of the SP actually defend them (They do have some support in Irish society).

My advise to those that want to slag off the SP(Magneto, Pat C, Durutti etc.), change the tune, the rest of us are fed up with it.

To the members of the SP, don't fall for the bait, let it go. If you want to contribute then do so positively, give us news and information. Don't feel that you have to defend every petty attack on the SP.

Enough is enough.

by Dec Fri Jun 13, 2003 02:13

yep ....pointless restating of well established positions followed by the not so deft avoidance of the debate in question. Moths to a flame. Please keep to the thread I am totally sick of hearing about the SP.

by pat c Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:13

The SP side with the cops and we should give it a rest? The SP shouldnt have to fall for the bait by replying?

Are you seriously suggesting that the SP can say anything they want but cannot be criticised or questioned?

Methinks you are an SPer, and dont bother denying it unless you are prepared tp reveal your true identity.

by kokomero Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:18

We get lots of lofty ideals from IMC about the purity of this medium, the need for original material, plagarism, sources etc. Yet as soon as the proverbial red rag appears the whole thing degenerates into a farce. Personally I couldn't care less, and I suspect I am not alone in this, about the SP, SWP, their factions etc. which are of no relevance to what this s(h)ite is about!

by Mark - SP Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:29

I'm suggesting you're perfectly entitled to criticise us once you don't start making up 'our position' on certain issues. We are also entitled to defend our real position.

by pat c Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:46

Then why do SP members keep asking for criticisms to be deleted? I didnt make up anything, your members have compared the BB to fascists and individual terrorists. You have suggested the BB was infiltrated by cops.

If you have any evidence then I challenge you to put it before the ICCL and let them adjudicate on it.

Do you also not think it a curious coincidence that personalised attacks begin when people are conflict with the SP?

by c tap Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:41

Since the teargas at Genoa has cleared, there have been reports of police brutality on the streets and intimidation bordering on torture inside Genoa's prison. Some Carabiniere officials have come forward to say they knew of infiltration of the Black Bloc, that fellow officers acted as agent provocateurs. Legal proceedings have begun against the Italian state on behalf of whose ribs were broken and skulls cracked when they were arrested by police swooping at midnight on the Genoa primary school which acted as the activists headquarters.

by c tap Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:44

And it was widely known that the police had masqueraded as Black Bloc, and they received quite a bit of heat for this. So I don’t think police in other cities will necessarily duplicate the tactics of the Genoa cops.

by c tap Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:46

True enough, there were cops in ski-masks leading the more excitable and naive among Genoa's young bloods on attacks on corner shops, bus stops and post offices. But the agitators can be addressed.

by pat c Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:48

If the SP/CWI or anyone else has evidence, then put it before an independent forum in the relevant country.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Oisin believes there is eyewitnees testimony of the BB being infiltrated by cops. Why dont the SP submit this evidence to the ICCL and let them adjudicate?

by c tap Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:01

Italian Authorities Used Neo-Nazis to Attack and Discredit G8 Protesters in Genoa

From Il Secolo XIX, a daily newspaper published in Genoa, 1 September 2001:

EX-CHIEF OF POLICE COLUCCI SAYS: 600 NAZI INFILTRATORS WERE IN GENOA

He confirmed the same news he had denied one month ago.

Camouflaged neo-nazis among the peaceful protesters at the Genoa Social Forum. Yet another resounding revelation, including even a precise figure: six-hundred infiltrators. The former Questore [Chief of Police] Colucci -- whom the Ministry of Internal Affairs sacked after the July 20-21 riots -- made these revelations during a 7-hour-long interview in front of the Parliamentary Committee investigating G8-related events. These revelations officialy confirm the presence of groups of far-rightist provocateurs. The GSF had sounded the alarm even before the days of the demonstrations. Ten days before the summit, Il Secolo XIX published confidential police files on potential infiltrators.

For the first time, Colucci was explicit about neo-nazis. He answered a question by PRC [Reformed Communist Party] Congresswoman Graziella Mascia: "You received intelligence reports on ultra-right groups planning to join the demonstrations. Why did you not stop them?" The former Chief of Police said: "As far as I know, the six-hundred ultra-right infiltrators did not take part in violent action in the territory."

"Six hundred ultra-right infiltrators": these few words open our eyes to a wider landscape. The previous police report on the [anti-globalization] movement's street action, which Colucci himself delivered to the officers in charge, contained no such reference. The report is dated July 12th [2001], and the Committee has cited it several times. Not only did it provide the police with the exact number of Black Bloc activists coming to town -- there is a reference to "500 Britons" -- it also declared that "Some Turin-based members of Forza Nuova [the most popular Italian Neo-fascist party] will form groups of 25-30 trustworthy militants in order to infiltrate the so-called Tute Bianchi [White Overalls]. These groups will attack the police with cold steel and discredit the left-wing."

Nevertheless, on July 25th, Colucci himself dismissed dozens of eye-witness accounts about the presence of nazis, right-wing skinheads and hooligans. He said: "There is absolutely no evidence that far-rightists infiltrated the demonstrations. That report was prior to the G8 summit and was about potential risks such as infiltrations. Nothing like that actually took place." Official denials were sent out by ultra-right groups Forza Nuova and Fronte Nazionale. And yet Biagio Cacciola, the leader of the neo-fascist group, FUAN, admitted that 300 of "our boys" were in the streets of Genoa. Furthermore, freelance journalist Mauro Bocci interviewed and photographed a young British nazi in the [fake] Black Bloc nicknamed "Doggy" [Liam "Doggy" Stevens, a 26-year-old nazi from Birmingham, UK, seen committing acts of provocation at the Via Canaregis], who told him: "I don't give a shit about the G8. Oor Italian brothers invited us and we came!"

Moreover, during the demonstrations, a social worker from Emilia-Romagna told Vittorio Agnoletto [spokesperson for the GSF] that, after the riots, she had seen some of the people whom she had assisted on two coaches, back in the company of their neo-nazi fellows. According to the GSF, sixty neo-nazis camped at Valbisagno (where members of the Black Blocs also camped). Some WWF members spotted a group of AC Inter tifosi approaching a demo. They wore fascist ornaments on their jackets, such as swastikas, celtic crosses, etc etc.

However, the most incredible news came from the Bolzaneto police station: the cameras owned by two German men under arrest, both of whom were charged with being part of the Black Bloc and are still in jail, contained pictures of the Genoa riots and . . . pictures of Nazi rallies that recently took place in Germany.

Graziella Mascia said: "I asked Colucci why he did not warn the GSF about the presence of nazi infiltrators. He replied that it was not his duty. Now it is clear that he certainly underestimated the danger, either purposefully or not. Nobody was interested in protecting the citizens who were going to demonstrate. They only thought of the Red Zone."

[Translated from the Italian by Wu Ming and proofread by NOT BORED!]

by c tap Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:12

Excerpt:
a. promote and escalate actions meant to manufacture a "war-zone scenario" ab usum mass-media and justify military interventions against all demonstrators. With a double effect: the first, to re-educate a disobedient and radical movement - before it is too late. The second effect is the one of de-legitimizing the most radical parts of the movement, the anarchists and all those whom, after "the battle of Seattle", felt somewhat simpathetic with the Black Bloc logo.

As reported by a witness, between via Assaroti and Corvetto "I hear someone screaming: 'Run away, there are the anarchists'. My impression is that these scary giants called Black Bloc do not want to go to Corvetto. In fact they attack us, peaceful demonstrators, breaking cameras and videocameras and throwing gas against us. The police does not make any intervention. We run toward via Montegrappa (...) A running boy, abou 20 y.o. asks me: 'From whom are we running away?" "From the anarchists" I say, while running. "But ... I am an anarchist" he says and slows down. Then he turns his head and start running again. The Blacks were breaking and putting fire on everything". Claudia Priano, Genova; published on Diario, August 3, 2001.

A moderator of the Black Bloc meetings held in Genoa declarated "All the independent property I saw destroyed was done by police provocateurs and the police were being as confrontational as possible". (US3). Nevertheless, he sums up - among other actions - one which was evidently made by agents under cover (reported below): his group had come later on and unknowingly joined the provocateurs in their action. This supports the thesis that it is difficult - even for Black Bloc members - assess what was done by infiltrated agents.

Some of the Black Blocs do not even think infiltration is an important matter - as declared by Mary Black**, and in the following interview to Adrian from Norimberga:

Q. What is the difference?

A. Easy: We didn't hurt the city but corporation property.

Q. Also cars and trash cans were burning ....

A. It wasn't made by us.

Q. So, by whom?

A. I don't know and I don't care

(...)

Q. Are you worried about infiltrations?

A. What is the difference?

Q. It is about your image.

A. Yes, it bugs me a little. But there is no damage.

Both Mary Black and Adrian underestimate the impact of infiltration, its meaning and the consequences - in so detaching themselves from a movement's tradition of self-defence and surveillance around the issue of provocateurs' actions during demonstrations. They both seem young and unexperienced, unaware and careless around the dangers of hosting police informers, and the possible repressive outlets. Their attitude support the hipothesis of individual subscribing to the Black Bloc with no former political experience, the absence of older leaders/advisors, and the lack of any peer-training - which would be necessary for any group willing to defy capitalism, state, and all types of social injustice in the world.

A very differing image is given by Stefano Agnoletto: "They move with military discipline, infiltrate everywhere, some leaders shout orders which are promtly followed by the whole group. And shortly afterwards, Police and Carabinieri make their appearance". Many subscribed this description of what happened, re-enforcing the interpretation of the Black Bloc (or pseudo-Black Bloc) actions as functional to military repression against the peaceful demonstrators.

b. disrupt real actions - such as the defense of a given space - by diverting demonstrators' energies and attention.

While the Black Bloc was involved in the attempt of defending Piazza Rossetti (where the peasants had their stands) and avoid the breaking of the rally (which eventually happened) I personally saw a group of "pseudo-Black Blocs" getting to Piazza Kennedy closely followed by a crew of video-operator. This is not in their style: the Black Bloc does not want to be object of cameras attention during their actions. The pseudo-Black Bloc pretended to destroy bank windows which had already been destroyed the day before.

Besides producing nice pictures of vandalic acts to be stigmatized on the press, the pseudo-Black Blocs were locating themselves in a strategic position: inbetween the advancing police and the rally. For, they were diverting the demonstrators' attention from the real danger. In fact, the police was coming up with the clear intention of attacking the rally, breaking the river of people in two parts - despite the attempt of resistance opposed by few groups, including true Black Blocs.

The first part of the demonstration will then be chassed - and its tail charged - by the police several times until the arrival in Piazza Ferraris; the second part of the demonstration will be prevented from going on, pushed back, and runned after for 4 hours - up to the near town of Quarto. In both cases, fragments of the demonstration being more vulnerable to the police attacks, were targetted by riot police and many people were hurt.

For the sake of clarity, all of the above happened far away from the red zone - or even the yellow zone - in the road where the Genoa Social Forum was located, where the Convergence Center and all groups were given their official location. The day before (July 20) the police had already tried to violate the GSF site during the demonstrations held in different squares of the city, as reported by Cobas leader Piero Bernocchi.

c. neutralize militants by anticipating their actions.

A militant who participated to Black Bloc meetings in Genoa, aimed to organize actions to be carried out on Friday 20th, stated: " We had made decisions about our targets, and agreed about sequences of contact points. But for the whole day we have not been able to do any action: once we got to each place, everything had already been systematically destroyed, as made by professionals having plenty of time. I felt we were not the Black Bloc any more, we were like a Ghost Bloc, totally disactivated and frustrated, and disoriented, since we couldn't do anything: everything was already done and we couldn't understand what the fuck was going on" (S26).

However, we should not support the idea that it was mostly composed by infiltrated agent from the police and/or the secret services, nor identify the Black Bloc with its non-political components - even though it seems like they both were present.

As a Cobas document states, "The Black Bloc - which remains external to the GSF political milieu in all its parts, also the most radical ones - is a result of the globalization, the crisis of parties and unions, and all organizations which seemed to be able to channel mass rage and dissent, all them have not been able to give a non-anarchoid organization to the protest which burns under the ashes of Europe and the U.S. (...) Understanding the Black Bloc is something more then avoiding its extremism in the streets - which of course damaged the whole movement, allowing the police to infiltrate and make the repression against the movement more scientific...." (Document written by Cobas members, Pisa).

Understanding the Black Bloc is a necessity, in order to understand what happened in Genoa as the rescue of the black box after an accident occurred is crucial to have a clue.

Yet, different clue might rely somewhere else. As a Black Bloc supporter reminds us, "Carlo Giuliani was not black dressed. He was not an insurrectionalist anarchist. He was not a punkabestia (punk crusty). Nor a "squatter". He was only a boy, full of rage against this world - which defended itself by killing him. He was not one of the few, he was one of the many. Revolt is not a rare genetic illness. Revolt is in the air, ready to manifest itself, everywhere and in anybody".

Understanding the Black Bloc is a necessity to understand ourselves as a movement and as persons who adhere to this movement at different levels and degrees; a necessity to raise questions about our choices and wonder where are we going to. This is a necessity to be counterposed to any attempt of criminalization or exclusion of this smaller component or - even worse - to its banning.

For this reason, what the Black Bloc may want to say about Genova would be of special interest for the whole movement. Up to now, we only have individual assessments - with differences in evaluation: H25 believes the infiltration was minimum evaluating it in much less than 150 persons; S26 supports the idea of a massive infiltration - which changes also the assessment of the whole experience: fundamentally positive for the first, annihilating for the second.

I know the request of a collective document may sound unfamiliar to a spontaneous milieu, based on individuals and small groups support, with no leaders and no heads, no representatives, no delegates. There are precedents: part of the mentioned document "NO2WTO", authored by a section of the Black Bloc in Seattle - which contains answers to "10 myths on the Black Bloc", with clarifications about the position on violence and private property, about the practice of hiding the face, and the answers to frequently made (by peaceful demonstrators) accusations.

We can only hope someone will produce a document to clarify the actual position of the Black Bloc after Genoa, what the Black Bloc revendicates and what is extraneous to its practices - given the undeniable presence of police agents who acted in the demonstrations by improperly using the markers of belonging to the Black Bloc - i.e. under the cover of this logo.

by You Morons Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:25

Wow, the guy who posted the first comment did have a point - there are some frickin' idiots on this website.

Can we just have a break from this incessant fighting between the SP, Labour, SWP, etc etc etc. Noboyd cares! And your incessant stupid bitching is putting people off this website.

If trolls come on, ignore them.

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:25

The SP are very quiet about their role in selling out the fire fighters strike.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=52314&start=0

by Ray Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:27

What has been posted so far?
More quotes from people saying,in effect "it is widely known that the police infiltrated the Black Block". Do I have to post the definition of 'hearsay' again? Neither the FT article,the AP review, and the Flako article present evidence of infiltration- they all just quote 'common knowledge'.
The interview with the ex-cop is also revealing. What does it say? That the police report said groups of neo-Nazis were trying to infiltrate the Tute Bianci. That's WHITE overalls,not BLACK block.
According to the GSF, members of the Black Block were in the same campground as neo-nazis. Leaving aside the question of how the GSF know this, I can exclusively reveal that members of Gluaiseacht, Globalise Resistance and other Irish heads also shared a campground with the Black Block. Who was infiltrating who?
Two prisoners have photos of the demo and of neo-nazi rallies. I reckon Paula Geraghty probably had photos of the demo, and of Marxism.Does that mean the Black Blocks were infiltrated by Kieran Allen? (And what's the link with the Black Block? They were charged with membership? When and where were they picked up? At the demo? At the social forum? Leaving Genoa?)
Some WWF (surely GSF?) members saw neo-nazis approaching a demo wearing fascist ornaments. If they were spotted by the GSF people they have to rank among the worst infiltrators in the world.

The only half-decent evidence there is the interview carried out by the freelance journalist,ad even that is hearsay. How do we know the neo-nazi was actually part of the BB? Judging by this article,the neo-nazi could have been wearing white overalls and he'd still be described as 'fake Black Block'. Where are the photos? Come up with a link to that interview, and then maybe we have something to talk about.

(And has anyone else noticed how we've switched from cop infiltrators to neo-nazis? Funny that)

(that's the last from me for today)

by Joe Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:50

First off you have to understand that there is an 80 year old tradition in Italian leninist politics of labelling anarchists as police agents. With that in mind return to the above documents and search for the 'evidence' there.

We have for instance the curious tale of the British 'fascist' who casually reveals to a reporter that there are hundreds of fascists infiltrating the demonstration. Yet strangely not a single demonstrator recognises or challenges any of these characters. Then the tale gets weirder as we are told that these fascists are staying at the same camp site as the black bloc.

Yet anyone who knows a little about who black blocers are knows that they include many of the 'physical confrontation' wing of the anti-fascist movement. So according to this evidence they are campign alongside a load of neo-Nazis without recognising them? Despite the face that the neo-Nazis are wandering around with swastikas etc.

It is quite extraordinary that anyone can seriously post that article as 'evidence' of anything here. If anything it just shows how craven sections of the left are in being desperate to believe anything that suits their agenda, even if as here an informed 8 year old could pick 40m holes in it.

The political agenda behind the invention of evidence is underlined by the 'evidence' that was talked about but that has never appeared. Post Genoa there was lots of talk of definite photographic and video 'proof' which showed black blocers mixing with cops. Talk of this proof even made its way into 'Berlisconis mousetrap'. But the proof itself is nowhere to be found, the one photo that was produced actually showed a plainclothes cop in white trousers!! But of course these non-existant photos and video were only needed to establish the idea that 'everybody knew' what had happened. Now that this is established we have already forgotten that they were ever supposed to exist.

One could perhaps take the anonymous black blocers who sought to blame stupid property distruction on infiltration a little more seriously were these accounts not part of the dung heap above. Unfortuantly the stupidity was more likely the result of the stupid politics of (primitivist) black blocers.

by OK - SP Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:51

This thread, and indymedia in general, is a load of rubbish and lies.

There are a tiny minority of people with a grudge against the SP. Previously they hounded the SWP off indymedia with your Tory Tabloid style obsession with 'trots'.

To say that the SP (or anyone on the left) sides with the police is FALSE and a complete LIE and MISTRUTH!

To say that the SP are against Direct Action is FALSE and a LIE and a MISTRUTH! We see Direct Action as a tactical question, and didnt think that March 1st was best time to tear down the fence.

According to these people SP members are behind all sorts of personal abuse on IMC. Ever think it was some shit-stirrer not in the SP?

These people now blame us for the defeat of the Firefighters strike. We are also to blame for Orange marches, paedophilia, loyalism, and the war on iraq! We'll probably be accused of assassinating JFK, kidnapping Shergar, and abduction of Lord Lucan next!

by Irish Black Blocer Fri Jun 13, 2003 13:52

In General:

I think the success of the direct action blockade in Seattle, the success of J-18 in London, and the success of the rioting in Prague was down to the fact that the prole mob held the element of surprise, of initiative. The State in Genoa successfully adapted to all direct action tactics. A blockade was useless against the fortress-city. Ya Basta! found the police violence too much for their non-violent self defence. While the Black Bloc was broken up both by being surrounded in their sleeping areas in some cases and in others by surprise attack. Others opted for symbolic tokenistic protest or for marching as a rally part of another direct action altogether (i.e. the base unions and much of the Italian Anarchist movement whose orientation was toward a march in support of the strike wave). Of course rioters have no answer for live ammunition once that particular Rubicon is crossed. Furthermore the State violence, in particular the raid on Diaz school, has had the effect of intimidating people away from similar summit protest actions.

On the plus side there was a massive reaction from many Italians, with large protests in most cities and seemingly many more people arriving for Saturday's march. The police violence appears to have undermined the legitimacy of the Italian government. Reports suggest that a similar situation is to be found in Sweden in regard to the State violence at the Gothenburg demonstrations.

Slightly more cynically it was certainly an education for many people in the reality of State power (State violence/State control as the song says) and just how much the paper that says 'democracy' and 'rule of law' is worth. Today the capitalist complacency, the P.R. exercise surrounding summit meetings has well and truly been disrupted.

However we need to recognise the improbability of closing down conferences of this nature in the future when the full forces of the State are deployed to protect them, as was the case in Genoa. Certainly these major mobilisations need new tactics , or modification of existing tactics, but should we not be putting these energies in to somewhere else where we might now achieve more. Such as local action against specific things effecting the community and also international mobilisations but perhaps now directed at other targets (i.e. in support of a particular local action), or a move back to the J-18 tactic of simultaneous actions across the world. In any case I think summit protests will probably continue thus so does the question of how we as anarchists respond to them.

Certainly I think one thing sorely lacking in Genoa was any attempt to propagandise the multitude of activists there &endash; this despite the provision of space for info-shops in the G.S.F. convergence centre. Don't get angry at the liberals and lefties get organised and convince, the only way to defeat these essentially pro-capitalist elements is to wage 'a battle of ideas' in favour of libertarian ideals.

Clearly the answer to the question where do we go from here? is to put down roots into the wider non-activist community and turn what has been a protest movement into a social movement. Summit protests have probably had their day, given that there will be no more fluke shutting down of conferences. Nonetheless while they exist we should be there using the opportunity to spread anarchist ideas.
Reform or Revolution, to Protest or to take Action.

There is of course a major political division within the "Seattle", "anti-globalisation", "anti-capitalist", "Summit-protest" , call it what you will, movement.

On the one hand you have N.G.O.'s, leftist parties, and Trade Union bureaucracies, aiming to, through "peaceful protest" (in inverted commas because this often precludes any direct action, non-violent or otherwise and also because I think you will find most genuine pacifists on the other side of this division) put pressure on governments to introduce reforms, or to give a place at the negotiating table/in the management of capitalism to the reformist leaders so they can introduce reforms.

To do this you have to appear 'reasonable', i.e. 'reasonable' within a Statist and Capitalist paradigm.

In other words what 'peaceful protest' translates as is ineffective marching, essentially lobbying en masse.

On the other hand you have people, anarchists and radical environmentalists, who see each protest as a step towards the transformation of society, through raising awareness and empowering people through direct action. Obviously the radicals pose a threat to the reformists.

Both because they can gain influence at the reformists expense and because they refuse to play by Capitalism's rules.

Not helping are fairly blatant attempts to divide the movement by politicians and the corporate media.

I'm now going to look at which approach is actually the more effective. The strength of reformism is that it seems likely that a few changes could be achieved far more easily than a total revolutionary change. Actually this is often not the case, for example, the Green Party's idea of having a guaranteed minimum income supplied by the state to every citizen, with this income to be set above poverty levels. Of course if this was introduced the amount of taxation necessary to pay for it would be such that it would produce massive capital flight, there would be no incentive for businesses to invest or operate at all in the country and it is highly likely that a lot less people would work also.

So some reforms are unworkable cause they go against the logic of capitalism.

Others actually make little difference, take for example Votes for Women. Which incidentally only came about, at least in Britain, through a massive campaign of illegal direct action and property damage. This legislative change changed women's lives and the status of women very little. Likewise aiming to see an end to the debt ignores that the money this would free into the hands of "Third World" elites would most probably be spent on the same things the loans were spent on in the first place, i.e. ostentatious consumption, arms, and industrial and infrastructural projects benefiting a tiny minority of the population. Indeed members of some of these dynasties have personal fortunes which could pay off their states debt.

One aspect of the reformist approach is getting their people in there to manage Capitalism (e.g. in government, in a consultative role at World Bank meetings). The recent German experience gives us a perfect illustration of the futility of this. The German Green party in government is managing capitalism, German industry needs nuclear power, German business needs war, thus the German Green party, if it wants to be in government must accept nuclear power and N.A.T.O.. The very things the removal of which was central to it's agenda of reforms.

A government of a capitalist society cannot go against the logic of capitalism. Thus what appears a lot easier to achieve than a total social revolution is actually unattainable.

Unattainable that is through reformist means, a campaign of direct action was hampering the nuclear industry (and of course it could have been hampering it a lot more if less energy had been wasted on the legalistic respectable avenues the system holds out for us). Similarly a campaign of direct action could prevent the participation of any state in a war.
The Black Bloc an instrument of the State?

There were pseudo-protestors in Seattle, Prague and Barcelona, in fact we could be as absolutely sure before hand that there would be similar in Genoa as we could be sure that there would be baton charges, tear gas, armoured personnel carriers and the other accruements of state repression. Why then is the existence of pseudo-protestors dominating post-Genoa commentary? This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, recent Italian history (which I will not be addressing in this essay as I have dealt with it previously; see: http://struggle.ws/freeearth/fe3_italy.html

Secondly, genuine confusion (for example, I have seen one report questioning how can we believe that the Black Bloc were anarchists 'cause they had a marching band with them!, I happen to like marching bands!, maybe they mean something else in different cultures, and this is perhaps a product of the self imposed isolation of radical elements in Genoa).

Thirdly, it does seem that Black Bloc property destruction did get out of hand, whether this was the product of State agents or pissed up youths is anyone's guess (but the presence or non-presence of State agents is a very different issue than the portrayal of the Black Bloc as an instrument of the State).

Fourthly, politically motivated disinformation put out by various Leninist parties, such as the Socialist Worker's Party and Italy's Communist Refoundation Party.

I'm going to deal with issues internal to the Black Bloc first .

It is important to that any tactic apart from it's intrinsic value or lack of value is only as good as how it is put into effect, who puts it into effect and where it is put into effect. The Black Bloc originated in Germany in the 1980's as a bloc with the intent of overcoming lefty and liberal dominance of protest movements (and the legalistic ineffectiveness that comes with it) and taking direct action against the police and neo-nazis rather than accepting their violence or perversely asking the State to do something about it. It was pioneered in Germany by Marxist Autonomen (who do have similarities with Anarchism but contrary to what you have read in the lefty and corporate press are not Anarchists).

It was later imported to the United States with a slightly different intent, that of overcoming the situation where anarchists had little public face at demonstrations as left/liberal groups had a tendency to ban them from speaking platforms consequently the appearance of a bloc of people all dressed in black marching together was a sort of advertisement for those people's ideas.

In the United States the Black Bloc then has meant a range of tactics depending on whatever event, for instance, I think it was primarily in North America where the property destruction tactic was added on (but not exclusively so).

For the benefit of the confused I should stress that a bloc simply means a gathering of people at a demonstration with similar intent, the black bloc is not an organisation, and the black bloc at one event may mean something different from at another event (generally speaking though it tends to be the most militant section of the crowd).

The black bloc in general is not exclusively anarchist, it was not an anarchist idea and anarchists do not have a monopoly on militant direct action therefore the presence of Maoists, Basque Nationalists or whatever does not represent some sort of corruption of the Black Bloc.

Furthermore it appears most anarchists in Genoa were with syndicalist rank and file unions and not with the Black Bloc.

Obviously it is preferably to think that some of the stupider actions were carried out by police agents but we actually do not know that (I will address this issue later).

As I understand it, the idea behind property destruction is twofold: Firstly some people see this as a way to court publicity, which it certainly does &endash; incident free demonstrations are rarely covered. I do not think we should be trying to get the corporate media to do our job for us as it will only be hostile.

That said anarchism has a far higher public profile now, than before the likes of Seattle, and J-18, largely down to property destruction, which is fair enough, but if this continues it will be a public profile of anarchism equals property destruction and nothing more.

Secondly, it is seen as a empowering direct action (the same as shutting down a conference), using physical force against symbols of capitalism.

Personally I think if it ever had a use, it's use value is over, certainly if we are in a situation where the property destruction is at an event which had a clear target of far greater symbolic importance, where the area is residential rather than a central business district and certainly in a situation where something starts with banks and so on being trashed but ends up with traffic lights being trashed.

The most important thing to remember is a good deal of the property destruction in Genoa happened not in an area like the City of London, where the banks or whatever have as their customers other businesses but in a working class residential area where I think for a few days people had a very hard time trying to find a working A.T.M. (plus people's flats and cars burnt etc..).

This is just counter-productive, about as counter-productive as I can imagine, the amenities of a community being smashed up. If we cannot be sure that property destruction (which I'm not much in favour of in the first place) will be properly targeted and not degenerate completely into rioting vandalism it needs to be knocked on the head completely.

Moving on to co-ordination it is clear from events in Genoa that being 'the most militant section of the crowd' (or the Black Bloc) is not enough, the lack of a greater unifying element coupled with the lack of prior organisation enabled the State to splinter the Bloc in the long march to the Red Zone, led to a situation where people pissed off at the actions of others in the Bloc fucked off and it also allowed stupid actions to take place.

This I feel was a problem which primarily occurred 'cause of the long distances involved, the lack of decent maps and the complete isolation of the Black Bloc from the Genoa Social Forum. Whereas in Prague there appears to have been no more organisation but a lot less isolation and a lot less city to cross, so the Bloc had it's own path and a more or less immediate target for it's energies.

A stewarding section to direct the path of the Bloc and prevent stupidities would have helped a lot, as would have the local movement providing a organisational focus (i.e. them having done the planning in the months before hand rather than planning being done by internationals in the days before hand), and a 'spokescouncil' in effect weeks prior to the days of the events itself eg. discussion between delegates of groups and organisation sending people to the protest. In other words a lot more co-ordination.
The Lefty Lie Machine.

The first thing it is important to remember is that of all the factions at Genoa only the White Overalls and the Black Bloc attempted to address the problem of police violence, others seemed content to assume that peaceful protestors meant peaceful police, or seemed content to marshal their followers into a situation where they would inevitably be the victims of state repression and then content to blame another section of protesters for the inevitable.

The second thing it is important to remember is that authoritarian left wing groups have a long track record of crying 'provocation' , 'state agent' at people whose actions or ideas are a threat to their bids for power.

The (Irish) Socialist Worker no.156 baldly asserts "There is now overwhelming evidence that the Black Block was given free rein to do anything it wanted in Genoa."

This is so obviously absurd it amazes me to think that anyone could think the reading public (albeit the Socialist Worker reading public) so uniformed as to believe it. Needless to say, none, that's it none, zero, zilch, sweet fuck all, of this "overwhelming evidence" is actually produced for inspection by Socialist Worker.

Given that this crap is actually being regurgitated by the so-called alternative press and not just the corporate media, perhaps, scary thought the thought is, it is being believed. So let's examine the claims.

"Free rein to do anything they wanted" remarkably the state and media have managed to keep silent the story of how the Black Bloc fought their way into the Red Zone, hospitalised half of Italy's police force (and I think half of Italy's police force were there) and guillotined several world leaders. "Free rein" I think the S.W.P. imagining that a free rein for protestors includes the use of live ammunition gives us the clearest indication yet that the policing policy of a future S.W.P. run workers utopia will greatly resemble that pioneered by their idols.

The only "overwhelming evidence" I have seen is "overwhelming evidence" of the death of a young man, who was most likely a Black Blocker, given his actions, politics, lifestyle and clothing.

Looking back at history they say that: "Small anarchist groups were occasionally infiltrated by neo-fascists and the secret services who tried to persuade, bribe or black mail them into carrying out their own acts of low-level terrorism."

This manages to ignore that the "left-wing terrorism" in this period was overwhelmingly Marxist-Leninist in political content, e.g. the Red Brigades. Furthermore far from low-level this included the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro, the Prime Minister, and "terrorism" is completely rejected by most anarchists (there may have been anarchist "terrorism" in this period of Italian history, I say may 'cause I'm not sure and open minded enough to include it as a possibility however it was completely overshadowed by the Leninist and Fascist variety!). Furthermore the Black Bloc tactic has nothing to do with "terrorism", as the S.W.P. well know, as they, like all good Trotskyists, know they difference between individualist terrorism and mass action.

The English Socialist Worker criticizes the police for not taking action against potential Black Bloc people prior to Friday's action and basically give the impression that it was entirely composed of police agents, or infiltrated to the extent that it might as well have been. This rag goes on to deliver a stunningly brilliant criticism of masking up, it apparently makes you an easy target for infiltrators, such as the massive amount of police and fascists within the Black Bloc (again no evidence is produced), of course not masking up makes you an easy target for gas and cameras, but this simple fact seems to have eluded the vanguard.

Ironically another group of Marxists has claimed on Indymedia that part of the Russian-Ukrainian delegation invited over, and funded, by ATTAC , who the International Socialist Tendency, i.e. the S.W.P. abroad, marched with, included leaders from the 'Red-Brown' movement which is basically the Russian version of the International Third Position/National Bolshevism/Strasserite Nazis, these were not infiltrators but were perfectly open, above ground, and prominent in the delegation! . Interestingly there were no denials of this post on Indymedia but just responses from people supportive of the 'Red-Browns'. Incidentally some of the "Red-Browns' in question apparently included Putin supporters, invited by ATTAC, who condemn the violence of the Black Bloc! .

Actually other Socialist Worker reports would seem to contradict this black Bloc=agents of the state acting with impunity 'analysis'.

"We learned that the streets around it had been absolutely devastated, with hand to hand fighting between the Black and Blue Blocs." (Blue Bloc meaning police). (from 'Belfast with Sunshine' http://www.struggle.ws/global/redjoe.html )
The Fake Black Bloc.

Three observations: One there may be genuine confusion and disagreement, for example (and all of the following happened): Credito Italiano, a credit union, no actually it's a bank. An independent cinema, no actually it's a porn cinema. A multinational oil company, no actually it's a small shop. Smashing traffic lights, a police agent? Or someone who thinks if you smash traffic lights tomorrow there will be traffic jams thereby taking up resources which could be used against us. Smashing bus shelters, a police agent? Or someone trying to spread glass across the road so as to hinder the movement of rubber tyred police vehicles. Moving bins into the middle of the road, senseless destruction or barricade making?

Just a little illustration of the fact that two eyewitnesses may be looking at the same thing but seeing something very different.

Again the main problem was where the property destruction was happening and the fact that there was a far more important target, i.e. the Red Zone.

The Second observation. There have been reports of an absence of anarchist graffiti where some of the decidedly un-cool property damage had taken place, whereas elsewhere there was thrashed banks adorned with anarchist graffiti.

Does this suggest - Police agents? Fascists? Or perhaps just non-anarchist rioters!!!! Yes they do exist. Where was the heaviest fighting and most of this property damage such as cheap cars being used for barricades &endash; the White Overalls march! Where there was only a small number of Black Bloc, the main body being elsewhere. Allow me to quote from someone who was on that march "Then barricades would be built, with dumpsters, cars, anything at hand. ( my emphasis) The front lines would retreat nursing wounds and poisoned eyes. The more seriously injured would be carried to ambulances. One man was carried by with blood splurting from his eye where a canister had hit him. New people rushed to the front, while others tore up the pavement for ammunition. A tall Irish man fell back saying " We almost got through, we almost did it, we just need a few more people!"

Another surge, everybody rushed forward on 2 or 3 different streets. Some riot cops got stranded in their retreat and hand-to-hand fighting ensued. The people fighting are not necessarily in black, some are masked. Some have helmets. It is not the Black Block, and there are no agent provocateurs. This is a militant energy driven by people who have said- Ya Basta!, fuck the police, rage, energy, resolve." (from 'Death and Terror in Genoa' http://www.stuggle.ws/global/genoa/ramor.html )

The assurance that there are no agent provocateurs involved in this situation is interesting isn't it?

The third observation, a comment on the June 18th disturbances in London, from the pages of Organise! The magazine of the Anarchist Federation, "Some idiots just attacked anyone/thing in the City, regardless" (Organise issue 52).

Finally if you are saying that little evidence exists to justify the hullabaloo about police agents, then can this be construed as a stubborn defence of the Black Bloc? Hardly, for that means that the extremely stupid damage which took place and furthermore the disorganisation which meant that Black Bloc was divided and parts ended up mixed in with other blocs and so on was the responsibility of the Black Bloc and not the police!

We cannot expect what amounts to a mob riot to be 'picture perfect' and if we want more than a mob riot we need to organise accordingly. Equally we cannot expect the State to be peaceful.

by pat c Fri Jun 13, 2003 14:43

Oisin

I checked the times, the SP member is quoted as backing the calling off of the strike. Now I dont believe everything I read in the papers.

Are you saying that the SP opposed the calling off of the strike?

25% of the delegates wanted to continue, are the SP opposed to them?

Will the SP be supporting the FBU leadership against left criticism?

by Chickens Home to Roost Fri Jun 13, 2003 14:53

OK it seems you are demanding that the SP be allowed to use any thread they like to have a go at the Green Party, Sinn Fein, Labour, Black Bloc, anarchists etc.

But that if anyone from these groups has a go at the SP you are going to cry and take your ball home. Frankly SP members have been the worst of the trolls on indymedia - right now you are getting some of your own medicine in return. If you don't like the taste of it them perhaps you should be more careful of how often you dish it out in the future.

And it is a matter of record that SP members took the side of the airport cops on Shannon, saying the protesters were getting them (the cops) into trouble. It is a matter of record that Joe 'virtual warrior' Higgins attacked protesters at the very moment they were being arrested in Shannon. It is a matter of record that SWP members accused Peter Hadden of pointing one of their members out to the PSNI in Belfast. It is a matter of record that ex-CWI members Tommy Sheridan and Steve McNally threatened to 'name names' of those 'responsible' for the Poll Tax riot. It is a matter of record that SP members on indymedia described black blocers as being like terrorists (the exact category EuroPol wants to put them into).

You can argue about how these facts should be interpreted but shouting about lies changes none of them.

As for March 1st not being the 'right time' to take action at Shannon. When will you be taking action then? Or as it appears was there never a 'right time'?

by ENOUGH Fri Jun 13, 2003 19:39

Pat C, Durutti, Magneto, OK, Mark-SP,

You guys are driving everyone else away from this site.

If you can't find something new to say then shut the FCUK up. I don't want to read a rehass of stuff that happened months ago from either side.

by BlackPope Fri Jun 13, 2003 22:15 BlackPope at operamail dot com

although this page did appear rather a waste of space, I was surprised and delighted to discover the nugget of sanity in a swirling cesspool of slagging that your above post represents.

I thank you for that, and would just like to offer as an addendum the thought that is in fact YOUR and MINE and EVERY SANE PERSON's responsibility to halt the insane bloodbath that Bush's (read 'ImperioCapitalism with the gloves off the Iron Fist') military barbarism spreads like a plague, precisely BECAUSE that run-amok juggernaut IS incapable and unwilling of ever stopping prior to the total enslavement and destruction of humanity.

We cannot pretend to stop the Juggernaut by using our heads as chocks in its path, but by intelligent application of fireaxes to its sides as it passes by, enough lumps can be taken out of it so as to seriously impede its progress and thus collectively hasten its speedy disintegration - think Shannon, think Military Junk Conversion Programme!!

With a contractually-binding greeting, .... BlackPope

by Dec McCarthy Sat Jun 14, 2003 01:45

We all had our bluff called in Genoa. The ferocity of the cops caught everyone off guard-fluffies, peaceniks, anarchos, trots and even the born again cynics all left Genoa paranoid and bewildered. The state called our bluff and some of us panicked and looked around for an easy, historically tested way of explaining away the failure of our various strategies-blame those who just don't know when to stop-blame the anarchists. Since then the debates about Genoa nearly always fall into the vortex of pointless recrimination.

The largely symbolic property destruction of the black bloc in Genoa was used as a pretext by the Italian state to criminalise certain forms of protest and to split the broad anti-capitalist movement. An important part of this strategy is to create a situation where elements of the anti-capitalist movement denounce the tactics and politics of another section because of “violence". Usually these denunciations are based on an understanding of violence based on metaphysics rather than politics; violence is treated as moral wickedness, senseless acts perpetrated by the maladjusted and insane. It won’t do to historically contextualise these acts or god forbid, to suggest that violence in endemic in capitalist society and targetted property damage is a response to this society. Often these denunciations come from the most self seeking and sterile elements of the radical left-I think you can imagine who I have in mind.

There was police infiltration in Genoa and there seems to have been a few boneheads out for a day's sport but so what this is ordianry statecraft. Is this really the story of Genoa? Does anyone seriously believe that the situation would have been any different is these gobshites weren't among us?. Do you think the 25,000 cops were there to give directions?. We have to stop endlessly recreating a pattern of discourse borrowed almost wholly from the mainstream media.

As Eamonn Crudden and others have pointed out the blac block are open to criticism but this "if only the black bloc had behaved differently the protest would have been great" line is bullshit. It is vital that we refine and develop our forms of protest and do not fall into the trap of fetishising any given tactic but anyone who sits around sorting the anti-capitalist movement into goodies and baddies is doing the state's work.

by Eamonn Crudden Sat Jun 14, 2003 16:09

Here's a link to a rolling debate (Myself, Andrew, Ray, Others?) which I heartily enjoyed at the time on the subject of the Black Bloc, Berlusconi's Mousetrap and Genoa in general.

Scroll down at this article:
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=20153

The one thing that Jumps out at me as being objectionable about this whole SP / Black Bloc 'debate' rolling around on the wires are the ominous threats of 'Repercussions' at the time of the WEF - for those who criticise the Black Bloc on the subject of Infiltration made by certain regular contributors - Pat C and One other person who I dont recall.

Who exactly the fuck do they think they are and who exactly do they think they are representing in these comments?

by ec Sat Jun 14, 2003 16:23

"If you dont deal with the BB issue then you are putting your big-mouthed younger members at risk."

"This is a serious issue, later in the year the BB will be comming to Ireland for the WEF. If SY kiddies go around badmouthing the BB as cop agents then they could be in deep shit. This is a statement of fact. The SP leadership have to put up or shut up."

Pat C

"If you have actual evidence about the Black Bloc then you should produce it. In any case you should be very careful of what you say. If you continue with your slanders when the Black Bloc arrive then there will certainly be trouble.

It wont be just restricted to your paper sellers. the SP Troika will be held responsible."

Durutti

by pat c Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:14

I made no threats, i am pointing to the obvious. Black Bloc people have already made thraets here. The last thing I want to see is vioence on the left. I have made it clear that I disagree with Durutti and his praise of the Czech Anarchists and their Trot bashing.

BUT the SP have constatly accused the Black Block of being infiltrated by cops. I am merely pointing out that this could have consequences. I dont want those violent consequences to occur.

That is why I am asking that the SP either put their evidence before the ICCL or shut up.

This is not backing intra left violence, I want to prevent it.

Eamon, I hope you now understand my position.

by pat c Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:51

Eamon

This is my original response to Duruttis proposed Trot bashing:

"Wrong Tactic
by Pat C Tue, Jun 10 2003, 10:37am

Think again Durutti. I am just as annoyed as you are regarding the ongoing degeneration of the SP, the way they will always point the finger at activists when clashs with the cops occur. BUT that does not make them agents of the state, what we have here appears to be some of the younger SP members taking the SPs ambivalent line on state violence to its logical conclusion.

The responsibility for this lies with Kevin McLoughlin, Peter Hadden, Domnic Haugh, Michael O'Brien and the other misleaders of the SP. Domnic Haugh because of his love affair with the Shannon Airport Police has a lot to answer for.

The last thing we need is clashs within the left. Fight back by publicising the poison the SP are spewing forth."

by ec Mon Jun 16, 2003 13:55

" ominous threats of 'Repercussions' " as I called them - or no?
I think I'll let readers make up their own minds.

("If you dont deal with the BB issue then you are putting your big-mouthed younger members at risk."

"This is a serious issue, later in the year the BB will be comming to Ireland for the WEF. If SY kiddies go around badmouthing the BB as cop agents then they could be in deep shit. This is a statement of fact. The SP leadership have to put up or shut up.")

by pat c Mon Jun 16, 2003 14:44

I originally thought that you had taken my comments out of context and misinterpeted them. It now looks as if you are determined to deliberately misrepresent me. The SP at no stage accused me of making threats against them. This is all in your head.

You seem to have time to trawl back through the various threads. If you look at the entire body of my comments in full you will see that at no stage am I making any threats. I have made clear from the outset that I didagreed with both the Black Block and Durutti. In my opinion there is a risk of violence on the left if the SP continue to make these unsubstantiated accusations.
It is also my opinion that if the US continue to occupy Iraq, more Iraqia and US troops will die. Is that a threat on my part? Does it make me responsible for violence?

The BB will eventually get here and are unlikely to be happy at the SP stories about them. To try and stop this possibility of violence on the left I am suggesting that the SP put any evidence (of BB infiltration) they have before the ICCL.

I cannot understand why you are misrepresenting my position. What are you up to?

by ec Mon Jun 16, 2003 15:26

to me anyway and I'll stand by it an leave it at that. Others can make up their minds if I am right or wrong. What am I trying to achieve? I'm not trying to achieve anything beyond getting through the day and dealing with inflicting a little peer pressure on my favourite troll.

(and before you threaten to sue me - I don't mean you)

by pat c Mon Jun 16, 2003 17:58

Even though I come from a notoriously litigacious family I would never sue you or indy.

I am honestlt trying to prevent violence occurring on the left. I have just pointed out the likely outcome of the SPs actions and words. It was the BB and Durutti who issued actual threats. (Which I have condemned.)

I have also (in true tourette style)on about 20 occasions asked the SP to put any evidence they have before an impartial body like the ICCL or Amnesty.

I dont think these are the actions of someone who is gleefully issuing threats and I am sorry that you choose to intepret it as such.

by Ray Tue Jun 17, 2003 15:07

I looked up the Mauro Bocci story mentioned above. Bocci apparently met a British fascist who was infiltrating the Black Block. Its funny, every mention of Boci on the web reports the staory as 'fascist in fake Black Block'. But when you read the actual article you find
1 - this article appears to be more hearsay, Boci is reporting something other journalists saw, and
2 - the fascist was found at Carlini Stadium. Carlini was the base of the White Overalls, NOT the Black Block.

So the search for evidence continues. Will this lack of evidence stop some SP member from repeating the allegation that 'everyone knows' about police infiltration of the Black Block? Will it prompt one of them to agree that they shouldn't be spreading rumours like this without any evidence? Will it lead to OK withdrawing his earlier allegations? Will it fuck.

by Dec McCarthy Tue Jun 17, 2003 19:33

all this talk about repurcussions is a little ludicrous. The black block is not a single entity, some sort of Specter type criminal organisation that identifies opponents and then exacts their revenge. When we go on like this it make the incredibly dogmatic and humourless comrades from the SP sound reasonable- no small task.
There are definitely limits to the tactics of the BB and we could benefit from a discussion of this that didn't sound like a distant echo of the tabloid press blanket criminalisation of the "mindless anarchists". I don't think the SP are capable of this and they have very little of worth to say about the BB, direct action or modern anti-capitalism. So Pat,Durrutti et al ignore their bleatings.