Anti-war Activists Must Condemn Bombing Atrocities in Turkey

by Hear Hear Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:22

I suggest we get a petition going, stating clearly that we condemn the actrocities, and post them off to Ossama, anyone got a recent address for him?

by barry Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:33

I agree with Dominic, whether we are anti-war or pro-peace we must oppose the use of violence whether it be random, 'terrorist' or state sponsored.

Using Violence to achieve your aims is essentially an act of war and in a similar vein to our opposing both Saddam and a war to kill him, we can support the cause of freedom and justice without supporting the use of violence in such campaigns.

This cowardly attack in Istanbul which is variously being claimed by or blamed on AlQaida has (in the west at least) served only the purposes of Bush, Blair and the war and fear mongers.

by Terry Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:36

I for one certainly condemn the bombing, but I don't for a second think this wasn't the work of the intelligence agencies of the global elites (e.g one of USA, Israel, UK, France, Germany)

The timing of this bomb is such a fantastic coincidence! Right on cue, Blair steps up to give platitudes about the menance of terrorism. This bomb has given them two things which are:

1) By having British people killed, the idea is that people in the UK are supposed to be shocked (and why wouldn't they) and say hey 'that's terrorism'. Then they are supposed to think, Bush is visiting Blair this week/today and they are the main people in the War on Terror (well War of Terror really) and then the penny is supposed to drop. Shucks, we shouldn't be against these guys, we should be with them. Duh? Maybe we should stop protesting, it just ain't right?

2) The bomb the other day in Istanbul and today's one are part of a campaign to pressurize the Turkish government into joing the War of Terror and sending troops to Iraq (refused by the Iraqi council) and provide other support such as overflights and bases. Officially they don't but probably do to some extent.

So this bomb actually addresses two problems for the world's power brokers at once.

We might also recall that last week's bombing was allegedly claimed by local groups, but the government insisted they were international groups for a number of reasons, but mainly because this was way beyond the capability of local groups and the skill required would also point to international groups. It was then immediately said to be the work of AlQaida. I am sure it will be likewise for today's bomb. And therein lies some truth, because AlQaida is such an amphorous, epheral group, that anyone can hitch up for the day and declare they belong to it, including phony terrorist groups set up by deep cover agents who are able to attract a ready supply of foot soldiers.

But you will notice one trend, that while all the 'mainstream' terror groups only ever manage smaller operations, the really big ones are probably all carried out by State/Intelligence agency controlled groups or fronts because there is no way of hiding things that big from them. And besides the level of planning, organising, financing and access to skills and material is another level or two higher. Not only that, the bigger attacks nearly all occur at extremely convenient times and places in the unfolding tale of the War on Terror and the neccessity of proping up the official story on 9/11.

However people are killed and by whom in this War of Terror, it is to be condemned, because today as in all the previous bombings, those killed and injured are simply ordinary people like ourselves and as always it is the people who fight the wars and die in the wars.

For a good, but long account of the fiction behind the war on terror, read:
Truth, Lies and the Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg in the related link

by Fintan Lane - IAWM Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:55

What happened in Turkey is absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned without reservation. No ifs or buts.

by pat c Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:07

i think terry has a good analysis. i wouldnt be at all surprised if this bombimg was black ops by the cia, mi6 or mossad.

but it has to be said that the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets cannot be justified no matter who the perpetrator.

by Chekov Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:07

I'd say that something like 99.995% of the world's population condemns this bombing, like they do with virtually all similar bombings and acts of violence against civilians. I do too. Personally, I'd take it for granted that anti-war activists condemn the bombing and you'd have to be mad not to do so. Contrary to what Dominic writes, I really don't think that this is an issue at all.

When people say, "I condemn the bombing, but..." they are not generally trying to qualify the condemnation, they are trying to add something to the simple-minded mainstream media view of 'you're either with us or with al qaeda'. So, I really don't see the problem with saying "I condemn the bombing, but I think that current US policy is contributing to the prevalence of such acts, rather than working against them." Demanding that people drop the 'buts' is just giving in to the right wing critics who claim that any 'buts' are soft on terrorism.

by Herdless Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:25

This is really all about the establishment getting us all to jump to attention and repeat the 'condemnation' mantra to show our allegiance. See the difference, if we dare to condemn the USA we are rounded on and subjected to all kinds of abuse.
We could end up automatically making condemnations as some sort of sign of our allegience to the West. They want it to be an obligation, just like during the 'Troubles' in this country. I made a point then of not jumping on that bandwagon, and I have no intention of joining the herd now.
Anyone who doesn't like that can lump it.

by Yossarian Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:32

People should probably do whatever their consciences suggest they should do following as much consideration of as many possible consequences as possible.

People should not, as a general rule, automatically do whatever anyone tells them they must do.

by Eilish - worldwide anti-war Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:47

Interestingly elusive comment Yossarian. What does it mean? In the meantime, I echo the comments made above regarding condemnation of the bombings. Chehov is being disingenuous by making this out to be a non-issue – why else did he feel it worth chucking in his two cents worth? And no Mantra – I’m not jumping to the orders of the media/US/UK … it was my own idea.

by Degenerate Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:52

"Eilish - worldwide anti-war"

Would you be against a war on fascism and would you be against the class war as well?

by Class WARrior Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:13

“Contrary to what Dominic writes …” Ah, hell hath no fury like a revolutionary organisation scorned. An ex-member of the WSM (founder member, I believe) takes issue with the left and Chekov is right on it. The WSM are behaving more like the SWP every day.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:37

* Anti-War Activists Must Condemn Child-Abuse

* Anti-War Activists Must Condemn Hypocrisy

* Anti-War Activists Must Condmen Cowardice

* Anti-War Activists Must Condemn Rape of Old-Age Pensioners

Well? Why haven't you Dominic Carroll? Are you afraid to speak out on these issues? Why hasn't Clonakilty Against the War spoken out about this before now? Are you in favour of the rape of old-age pensioners or something? Please respond, I'm very concerned.

by Degenerate Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:38

I'm just wondering why Dominic picked this atrocity to start a thread with. There's been more than one a week since the summer.

Perhaps Indymedia could facilitate a condemnation corner. Although there are some who think that Indymedia as a whole already plays that role.

by Chekov Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:50

I expressed my own personal opinion on the article - nothing to do with the WSM. I merely disagreed with Dominic's opinion that the left has been slow to condemn these atrocities when committed by islamic fundamentalists (or somebody masquerading as them). Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I really haven't come across any lefties who wouldn't condemn al-qaeda type attacks absolutely. I also tried to get across the idea that 'buts' are sometimes not equivalent to watering down the condemnation. I don't know what the opinion of others in the WSM is on this, and they may disagree with me. The opinions of WSM members on indymedia are almost always in a personal capacity. We do not have any particular line that we are supposed to put across here.

The idea that I jumped on this because Dominic used to be a member of the WSM over a decade ago, is so ludicrous that it leaves me baffled. I don't know Dominic, and don't have anything against him and have never heard anybody in the WSM say a bad word against him. My only interaction with him ever has been on indymedia and he gives me the impression of being a good and genuine activist. I don't think anybody in the WSM has made a habit of attacking him here in any of his previous postings. So, to be frank, you are fantasising and your fantasies probably reveal quite a bit about you.

Finally, would you care to elaborate on your claim that the WSM is becoming more like the SWP every day? I consider the fact that I politely disagreed with an article by Dominic on indymedia to be pretty scanty evidence.

by The Seagull Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:34

Once again you are responding rationally to a troll instead of blowing up his bridge in a surgical strike. I will crap on the trolls bridge next time I fly over it.

Meantime, less latte.

by George W dumbwars bush Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:36

Following through the logic of Bush's war against terror and the sucess of carpet bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I know you will all see the logic in this, Bush and his allies should now launch a massive air strike/bombing, land assault etc against those pesky Uncle sama bin liner terrorists hiding in Turkey. Yes lets bomb the hell out of turkey, because it is clearly giving refuge to those al ciaeda terrorists.

by paul Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:49

i appreciate the writers sentiments but i remember seeing this sound bites when something happened in the north you just get each party saying i condemn this , me too , me too, and it becomes akin to the my peace is better then yours arguement its a waste of time

by carpet bombing of Turkey needed Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:52

How could this happen?, don't tell me the wholesale carpet bombing of afghanistan and iraq hasn't sorted out those pesky al-ciaeda/ unclesama bin liner terrorists.

Maybe if George W, and his cohorts carpet bombed Turkey and the whole world too, they may eventually hit unclesama bin liner and his al-ciaeda cohorts some day.

by Lone gunman Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:58

Going by the last dumbass comment it also means that Dublin and Belfast should be levelled by a B52 arc lite strike.They are also hotbeds of terrorism and safe havens of terrorists and seeing that Dubya is at war with all terrorists we should be invaded soon as well.[Should be no problem via Shannon].
I am glad to see that the anti war folks are condemning the Istanbul bomb.However i wonder why is it always sounding like it is just rethoric,of the Sinn fein Gerry Adams school of answering a question. "we condemn the bombing of course.BUT it is a direct cause because of.....blah blah blah...yada yada"[Add in your arguement].Sort of saying sorry and not meaning it.
no ,I somhow doubt that M16 or CIA or whomever was behind the bomb.Too risky if it went wrong.Think Dublin /Monaghan on a grander scale.And why cant small terror groups not be able to carry out a spectacular? Our glorious "freedom fighters" almost wiped out the British cabinet in Brighton in 1984 with four pounds of semtex and a VCR timer. The Brit war cabinet in the last Gulf war was almost wiped out by a bunch of irate Paddies with home made mortars in Downing st when they were worried by Iraqui hit squads.

by Anthony - Kildare anti-war Thu Nov 20, 2003 20:08

To be fair Dominic carries a powerful argument for condemnation, and for this "honest aproach" to be adopted by "the left and the anti-war movement"

Fintan agrees whole heartedly, "no ifs, no buts"

I think this would be a disastrous strategy for the Irish Anti War Movement to adopt. I recall a similar argument in the aftermath of Sept 11th, when many called for a "No to war, no to terrorism" slogan. In the heel of hunt, the movement focused on the real culprit of American Imperialism, and held together the different strands of opinion, (revulsion at the actrocity in New York was unanimous amongst all participants)

And by the way, we can be sure that we will see many more "absolutely unacceptable" actrocities like today and Sept 11th before this nightmare is finished.

Of course Fintan like any other leader of the Irish Anti War Movement (PRO or otherwise) are more than entitled to voice their personal opinion, and I respect that his are very sincere, but in this instance he has got it very, very wrong, and I sincerely hope the IAWM does not fall into the trap of going down this road

by Paddy Crerand Thu Nov 20, 2003 20:44

Actually, the SWP in Britain did not condemn Sept 11, nor did they condemn the attempted bringing down of an Isreali passenger jet in Kenya last year. It is an issue, because, contrary to the various conspiracy theorists who inhabit this page, most of the attacks are not carried out by CIA/MI6/Mossad (last week some innocent soul put forward the theory that Bin Laden would not target Muslims so it had to be western agencies responsible for bombs in Saudi Arabia) but by genuine angry Muslim fundementalists, who yes, before I'm called an imperialist, do indeed have plenty reasons to hate the US and Isreal, and western imperialism in general, but who also have an agenda which goes beyond opposition to imperialism. Do synagogues in Turkey represent western imperialism? I would say absolutly not, but many, though not all Islamists, believe Judaism (not Zionism) is a legitimate target. Many on the left fail to appreciate this and I also would suggest do not get in any way as upset by dead Australians in Bali, dead Isrealis anywhere or dead Americans on Sept 11 as they do about the victims of western imperialism. While picking and choosing which dead to get upset about has always come easy to a left cosseted from the actual conflict they are arguing about I don't believe a genuine movement encompassing actual members of the working class will ever emerge until people do face the issue raised by Dominic Carroll.

by Fintan Lane - IAWM and Cork Anti-War Campaign Thu Nov 20, 2003 21:02

I'm not sure what Anthony finds disagreeable about the sentiments I've expressed. As others on this thread have pointed out, virtually every anti-war activist is instinctively appalled by such horrific attacks on civilians. However, it helps to openly state it at times instead of assuming that everybody knows how we feel.

Do this take from our focus on the horror of US imperialism? Hardly. The IAWM (and most anti-war groups at the moment) spends almost all its time mobilising and arguing against US imperialism and the military adventures of the Bush regime. Look at the record!

Personally, I'd like to see some focus on the misdeeds of other states such as Russia and Uganda (to name two of many possible examples), but the United States has such dominance it is scarcely unusual that so much energy is put into opposing its actions. In that context Anthony's worries are somewhat baffling.

The IAWM could hardly be seen as an organisation that focuses equally on the evils of imperialism and terrorism. Its focus is entirely on opposing state-led imperialism. However, like most anti-war activists, I personally will not hestitate to condemn actions such as the Turkey bombing with no ifs or buts. And that doesn't mean that I ignore, or fail to elucidate, the context of such atrocities. We all know the context; we spend our activist lives highlighting it!

Anyhow, the anti-war movement contains people of diverse opinion and we really shouldn't be demanding that everyone hold the same 'line'. The diversity reflects something good not something bad.

by Drbinoche Thu Nov 20, 2003 22:58

I am pleased to see that Indymedia has finally started to be fair and has asked for condemnation of a horrible and needless act of terrorism, but I am also sickened by the fact that alot of people are doing the whole, "Its horrible, but its because of...." Its Horrible FULL STOP! Irrespective of whether Turkey has troops in Iraq or whether or not they gave flight permission to US and UK forces, it does not excuse someone mad fucking bastard blowing up hundreds of people, killing 20-30 of em. By that rationale we are all due a bombing by the mad fucking Fundies and if it happens we can't complain and should be accepting of our 'punishment' for doing something against what a bunch of morons believe. I am sickened by this strike, I know why it happened, I know how it happened and I know who did it. If anyone seriously believes it was the work of MI6, CIA or Mossad, then check yourslef into a home, you have serious paranoia problems. I mean by that rationale, why must Al Qaeida be blamed for anything, I mean you guys must logically assume that it doesn't exist and is purely an excuse cooked up by the intelligence agencies so that they can get away with anything they want. Honestly, do you think someone from the west would do this, knowing full well, if it went wrong in anyway shape or form, the fall back would be unreal. The targets match a good soft target as defined by the Base,the method is consistant with their usual method of attack, the time of day was consistant with when to strike to maximise the damage.

Also I was unaware anyone on this site was clairvoyant, or all knowing. Because its the only thing I can assume. You were not there, you are only going on what you see through mainstream media and most importantly, your ASSUMPTIONS! You were not there when it went off, you did not see the type of bomb before it went off, you did not see who was carrying it, and yet you can claim it to be the work of an intelligence agency. If it turned out to be a ruptured gas main would you be doing the same?? I mean Forensic detectives need you on the streets, you'd solve every major crime in the city before the body had even gotten cold. You just look at him/her and say, "Oh it was such and such or I know CIA did it!!" Wow, you guys must be close to Deity status by now.

I would bet my life on it being Al Qaeida, because they are the ones who have the most to gain from all of these attacks and all future attacks. I will tell you, it ain't gonna stop, expect another big one by the end of the year.

by Turlough Fri Nov 21, 2003 01:01

So sad to see the British Viceroy and so many of his top intel guys blow to bitteens. Mo bhron Mo bhron.

And as fot the global headquarters of an Imperialist bank?

Surgical strike, as the Imperialists themselves say. Collateral damage .....is regretable... blah ..blah ...blah...

by David C. Fri Nov 21, 2003 03:29

Turlough's post (above) brings up a very critical point:

Anyone who is outraged by the bombings today in Turkey, but who ignores or minimizes the 15,000 dead in Iraq or the 44 killings per day of innocent Iraqis by US troops is confused at best and a warmongering racist at worst.

Picture a 3-year old Iraqi girl crawling over the rubble of her house towards her mother's corpse, dragging her intestines behind her. That's what 'regrettable collateral damage' is.

THE UNITED STATES HAS COMMITTED ACTS LIKE THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH IMPUNITY.

*All* violence, by American terrorists as well as Arab terrorists, should be condemed and punished.

We should all work towards punishing america in whatever way we can. But without violence - because otherwise we are no better than them.

by Fergal Fri Nov 21, 2003 05:15

Anyone who is outraged by the inadvertant killings of Iraqi civians by US forces should remember the torture and massacres committed by saddam Hussein.

He who is outraged by the (again inadvertant) killings of Palestinians by the IDF should remember the the horrific targeting of ordinary civilians by homicide bombers and their active support among the Palestinian popualtion.

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

The hypocrisy of you so-called "peace activists" is truly sickening.

Always ready with the excuses for Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, and Al Qaeda.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 21, 2003 05:25

let's play a little game.

I condemn the terrorist murders committed by Al Qa'ida and whoever set off the last bombs in Istanbul and by Saddam Hussein.

Now, you condemn the murders committed by the United States in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Panama.

And let's both condemn the murders committed by the oh-so-lovely UN which supervised sanctions that saw the deaths of well over 500,000 in Iraq due to malnutrition and lack of medicines.

Let's hear it clear "Drbinoche" and "Feargal".

While you're doing that we'll be busy making sure that neither the capitalists in the US/K (thanks ipsiphi) nor their creatures (Osama bin Laden, Suharto/Sukharnoputra, Arroyo, etc) are allowed to proceed with no resistance -- we'll leave that to you.

by avi H. Fri Nov 21, 2003 06:38

I haven't heard anyone condemning these, which are surely just as, if not more dispicable than the bombings of the Brit consulate and HSBC. These are out and out anti-semitic atrocities, yet deafening silence about them is heard here.

Please explain.

by john - NONE Fri Nov 21, 2003 08:35 JPMULLEN96 at HOTMAIL dot COM

PALASTINE???????????????

by Fergal Fri Nov 21, 2003 08:50

I wouldn't call the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under the UN sanctions regime "murder". More like negligent manslaughter.

It seems that in opposing the US invasion the anti-war people were quite happy to let that situation continue for the next 20-30 years.

Now Bush has brought the UN administered horror to an end and the people of Iraq are free to protest just like you. you don't see them abusing their freedoms by making excuses for terorists.

________________________________________________
You seem to be comparing the deaths of civilians in the long US/Soviet war with the deliberate murder of innocent people by terrorists. That is truly a sickening thought. In the case of any US intervention during the Cold War, civilians were never a direct target, in most cases, every effort was made to avoid civilian loss of life,

There is no comparison between the inadvertant deaths of civilians during wartime and the deliberate targeting of Israeli, US or Turkish citizens by terrorists.

Your analogy is either a work of stupidity or of evil.

by JOHN Fri Nov 21, 2003 09:15

Fegal
YOU WRITE
There is no comparison between the inadvertant deaths of civilians during wartime and the deliberate targeting of Israeli, US or Turkish citizens by terrorists.

How do the two US atomic bombs in WW2 fit into your incomplete analysis fergal??

You then say

Your analogy is either a work of stupidity or of evil.
Oh oh its that "evil" word again. Back to the church with you Fergal, Tony and George are waiting

by Fergal Fri Nov 21, 2003 09:55

How far back will we take this argument, the N American Indian wars??


Most historians agree that the atomic bombs did actually save lives, most of them civilian Japanese. Read the literature, see for yourself. It was a tough call, but I believe that bringing that war to a swift end was the right thing to do. If the US was really targeting civilians they could have nuked Tokyo, they didn't.

I never said anything about the church....

I do believe there are people who do and say things for evil motives, and I question Phuq Hedd's motives for arguing that US military operations during the Cold War and the atrocities committed by terrorists are analogous.

They're not, it should be self evident to any decent human being that they're not.

by Righteous Pragmatist Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:25

While the Left were in Trafalgar Square felling a golden effigy of George Bush the victims of the Istanbul bombings were lying in pieces and their blood running like river through the streets!
Graham Carter(34) and his fiancee Hulya a beautiful Turkish girl who had been together for four years were caught up in one of the suicide bombings. Hulya was blown into a shower of blood, torn flesh and bone chips spraying over her horrified boyfriend. The last thing he say before his eyes were sliced by debris was the sight of his beloved blown to bits.
These terrorist killed THEMSELVES so they could MURDER others! The extremist groups they belong to are Islamic Fundementalists! They want to establish a world Islamic state based on Sharia Law.
Do YOU know what THAT means?
No freedom of speech.
No Women's rights.
No democracy.
No freedom.
No mercy for dissenters.
No right to practice your own religion.
No LIBERTY!

DO YOU WANT THESE TERRORISTS TO CONTINUE KILLING MORE INNOCENTS LIKE POOR HULYA AS THEY DID YESTERDAY?

NO?

HOW DO WE STOP THEM?

WE FIGHT THEM AND KILL THEM ALL!

yet you topple statues of Goerge Bush the only world leader prepared to fight this EVIL!

SHAME ON YOU!

by avi H. Fri Nov 21, 2003 13:56

Hmm, methinks there is some racist hypocrisy going on in this thread, as it would seem ok to people here to knock off a few Jews but not to bomb some Brits.

Remember that the Jewish people killed were a) at worship in a house of prayer b) not Israelis but Jews, killed BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS. Any supposed disagreement of the perpetrators with the policies of the Israeli government would be irrelevant (i.e. 'PALASTINE????'). Moreover, even if it weren't, it wouldn't justify deliberately blowing all these people (including muslims) to bits, now would it? I think it is now safe to say that there are a number of countries where, if you are a Jew, that is enough to get you killed. That is racism by any definition, wouldn't you say, folks?

Any comments on this, or are you all just too stunned by this display of logic?

by Anonymous Fri Nov 21, 2003 14:02

Very much agree with your article Dominic.

Re:- Chekov

I take your points Chekov but I think it is an important issue for a few reasons.

1. The anti-war/globalization movement and left wing campaigners in general must visibly be seen by the public to condemn such atrocities.

The anti-war/globalization movement has been branded anti-American by many. In order to convince the public that it is not anti the American people but rather their political policies the movement must be visibly be seen to condemn these atrocities.

2. As with ANYTHING in life, I do not think one should take assume or take anything for granted - "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups" I once heard said.

I see little condemnation of the Palestinian atrocities by the left, not do I see much condemnation of Farc atrocities. And of course there is a large sympathy for the IRA in this country.

General acceptance for atrocities in any format must not be allowed to creep in to left wing politics. Rather the reverse - outright and public condemnation of atrocities by any group must be felt and portrayed - like with Dominic’s efforts here.

by Eilish Fri Nov 21, 2003 14:10

Twice on this thread, Avi has criticised a failure here to condemn the attacks on the synagogue in Turkey. “I haven't heard anyone condemning these”, says Avi, along with “methinks there is some racist hypocrisy going on in this thread, as it would seem ok to people here to knock off a few Jews but not to bomb some Brits.”

Avi – the very first contribution here by Dominic Carrol refers to “atrocities such as those perpetuated in Turkey today and on Saturday, or … café bombs in Israel, etc.” And he concluded as follows: “I condemn atrocities – all of them. I would urge other anti-war activists to do likewise.”

by an anarchist Fri Nov 21, 2003 14:25

if the "anti war movement" or "the left" was to condemn the bombings in istanbul, then seeing as how the spotlight is on turkey now, it could also condemn the turkish government for their continued ill treatment of the hunger strikers.

this site is old but its the only one i could find: http://www.geocities.com/turkishhungerstrike/

by John Fri Nov 21, 2003 15:00

If you believe that you can achieve your aims against the powers that be through non violent means then you condemn. If you believe the opposite to be the case then you dont condemn. I personally dont believe that any "human right" was ever achieved through non-violent means. The suicide bombers are using the only means available to them to attack western hegemony and greed. Demonstrations wont stop the ruling elite carving the world up for themselves. You got to blow the shit out of the system pure and simple. If western society wasnt so sick and hypocritical in the first place there would be a lot less atrocities to condemn

by United Capitalist cunts Fri Nov 21, 2003 16:15

Righteous prickhead hit the nail on the head earlier. I think if Mr Bush carpet bombed the whole world eventually he would be bound to wipe out unclesama bin liner/al-ciaeda unless of course they are hiding in Mr Bush's ranch. I understand Unclesama bin liner has been a guest at Bush's texan ranch in the past, enjoying presidentes hospitality and favours.

After carpet bombing the whole world, we could then implement Righteous prickhead's list of totalitarian crackdowns aimed at libertarian dissenters and anyone that isn't rich. This and the carpet bombing of the whole world will ensure, Mr Bush and his select privileged few oil baron chums will be safe forever more to enjoy their wealth and have at their feet the whole world as their las vegas type playground.

by United Capitalist cunts Fri Nov 21, 2003 16:35

I knew they would. Imagine what the headlines in the daily papers would have been, hundreds of pictures of mass protests and the toppling of el presidente's statue if it hadn't have been for unclesama bin liner's al-ciaeda bomb in Istanbul.

So as a loyal patriotic Bush supporter and oil baron, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank al-ciaeda for grabbing the headlines/front pages with their bomb instead and diverting the worlds gaze away from anti-war protests which have greatly embarrassed our beloved el presidente.

Trust al-ciaeda to come to Bush's rescue in the nick of time once more.

by Terry Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:39

First off, why don't we get requests/demands for the pro war/right wing to condemn attacks on Iraqis or Palestinians and so forth?

Regarding the 'no ifs and buts', I totally disagree with this demand. Asking people to condemn this bombing or any other (which is a reasonable request) and then demanding 'no ifs and buts' is very unreasonable, because the implication is that only our great leaders (make sure you bow as I say that) like Ahern in our case and Blair and Bush for the other people are the only ones allowed make a comment on it. Or should it be when we are told 'no ifs and buts' that only Sky News is allowed to comment, or perhaps opinion writers like John Waters or Kevin Myers are the only ones permitted to speak. Perhaps they have been blessed specially by the Gods in government. We mere mortals are supposed to shut up and listen. And that's what 'no ifs and buts' really means and is about. Yes shut up, you are only allowed listen to propaganda!

In the past 24 hours, the media (Sky in particular) have been endlessly spinning this story and have cynically used it. But that as I maintained earlier is why elements within the security/intelligence agencies who are the ultimate handlers for these terrorist organisations and so that was their intention.

Another thing to notice, is that the media has chosen to show us the blood, injured and dead on this occasion. Why? We didn't and don't see it for many of the other atrocities, especially ones inflicted by 'coalition forces'. If they are going to show such images (and I don't have a problem with it), will they be consistent and show them all the time? And I am sure it's the same on Russian or Chinese TV, when those governments there carry out their own atrocities -no coverage, but plenty when it's the other way around.

And regarding those who shout conspiracy theories, what are you upset about? Is it that your world and the so called civilised West will not turn out to be so civilised after all. You really give it away when you say: Honestly, do you think someone from the west would do this, ...
-that's such a smug and arrogant statement.

I won't take the rest of your sentence out of context because you say: And what if people find out, the fall back would be unreal. Well there's little chance of that happening as long as the corporate controlled media are in place. And yet that is the very thing I suggest and you dismiss it out of hand. Do you read the document I gave in the related link, in my first posting? In it Chaim Kupferberg gives the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the whole 9/11 tale that I have seen to-date and accounts for much of what has happened, unlike some of the other explanations which only explain parts of the story and cannot account for other observations.

There is plenty of documented evidence the CIA, working with the Pakistan intelligence services (ISI) setup both Al Qaeda and the Tailban. They supported Bin Laden himself for 10 years during the Soviet Afghan war. Do people not want to believe this? Do people thing the CIA are dumb-asses and will just walk away from an 'asset' like that?. In Bosnia, the CIA worked with Islamic Al Qaeda linked terrorists? Maybe people don't like to hear this either? All over the world for the past 40+ years, all the governments of the major powers have ALL worked with terrorist groups. They have trained them, nurtured them, financed them, armed them, supplied them with transport and intelligence.

Perhaps you can't stomach the fact that in the 1960s, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had signed off on Operation Northwoods which was a plan hatched to launch a terrorist campaign against American citizens and actually have some of them killed, all so as to provide a pretext to invade Cuba. This stuff was declassified in the late 90s. It is official on the record stuff.

Those against any conspiracy fall into the trap of lumping them all together and dismissing everything without examining the facts and making any attempt to piece together how well they do or don't make the whole situation fit together consistently and logically. Dismissing out of hand is equivalent to being totally naive and accepting everything that Bush and Blair spin. A few months ago, one would be labeled a conspiracy theorist for suggesting WMDs in Iraqi didn't exist and so forth on lots of other so called 'facts' since proved to be totally bogus.

But as someone said here, these people are fanatics and indeed they are right.

And I will finish by saying, whether it was 'real' terrorists or intelligence agency controlled 'terrorists', I condemn whoever it was that carried out these attacks.

by avi H. Fri Nov 21, 2003 19:21

I stand corrected in this respect. Further, I strongly reject the idea that a suicide bombing of innocents is the only method of protest open to those who perpetrate such atrocities.

by David C. Fri Nov 21, 2003 19:36

Just curious - what other methods of protest are available to the palestinians in trying to prevent the theft and colonization of their land? Writing letters to the editor, perhaps? Or maybe high-altitude bombing with 'smart weapons'/

Seriously, I'm curious...

by mr. fuzzy logic Fri Nov 21, 2003 21:24

Avi why do you equate attacks on Jews with "racism" ....

What exactly do you mean by a Jew ?
Is your understanding of "Jew" a racially-based or a religion-based one ?

If the former, then the racism charge may be valid. If the latter, then surely we should be talking about sectarianism.

But please spare us the self-pity:
"I think it is now safe to say that there are a number of countries where, if you are a Jew, that is enough to get you killed. That is racism by any definition, wouldn't you say, folks?"

Look face the facts, there are plenty of places in the world where having the wrong skin colour or accent or something else may get you killed ....
Being an Arab in the wrong place in Palestine may also be enough to get you killed.

So what the f**k is so special about the "Jews" or "Israelis" or whatever you want to call them - why should they merit special attention ? They're not the only ones to have faced persecution and genocide ......

And as for your condescending comments about "hypocrisy", speaking for myself personally I am not going to get too upset about a few Brits getting blown up either ... sure it's happened often enough in Ireland in the past .....

And I never heard the Israelis or Jews or whatever you want to call them shouting too loudly when Irish people were getting wiped out by the Brits (or by "famine") in days gone by .....

Call me an anti-semite as no doubt you will ....
Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss ..... petty-minded moralists like you piss me off .....
And that is regardless of their ethnic or religious origins .......

But I like Israel Shamir .... he's a cool dude .....

http://www.israelshamir.net/english/midasears.html

by David C. Fri Nov 21, 2003 21:57

ALL racism, sectarianism or any other prejudice is evil. People are individuals, and whenever that individuality is taken away from them in the mind of some moron, very bad things usually happen.

ALL violence is bad and is terror - whether its done by Hamas or the American 82nd Airborne or by the IDF or by Al Quaeda. All of these groups de-humanize their victims, in an attempt to inflict violence with a 'clean' conscience. Don't let them...

BTW, Palestinians (and all Arabs) are semite peoples too, which technically means that there are probably more anti-semites per capita in Israel than anywhere else in the world. Ironic, huh?

by mr. fuzzy logic Fri Nov 21, 2003 22:43

Well now, David would you ...

And on what basis .... ?

I am completely in agreement with your position that people are individuals .....

And I like the thought provoking writings of that curious individual Israel Shamir .... and he's a Jew ... albeit one that doesn't toe the Zionist party line ...

So all that makes me an anti-semite ?

So what are you then .... a namby-pamby little Dublin 4 utopian nice guy ... ?

How about taking your head out of your arse .....?

by David C. Sat Nov 22, 2003 00:56

Well now. It appears that you actually do give a toss...

As an example - you state: "what the f**k is so special about the "Jews" or "Israelis" or whatever you want to call them".

Well, first of all, there is no them. There's just a bunch of people - some good, some evil, some smart, some dim, some powerful, some weak, etc. They are all special because they're all individual human beings. Second of all, to equate Jews with Israelis is just wrong.

If you want to lay blame then lay blame for evil acts or opinions that are freely chosen by their perpetrators. "Greater Israel Zionists" or "Likudniks" are labels that I tend to use to describe those who persecuting the Palestinians.

As for Israel Shamir, he's just a goddamned russian, and those bastards are all the same...

by Fergal Sat Nov 22, 2003 06:55

You know why??

Because in their cosy middle class world these vicious thugs are romantic freedom fighters engaged in a quixotic struggle against "the system".

These people never really got off campus. The thing is, they don't even accept the consequences of their actions.

Horrible people.

by avi H. Sun Nov 23, 2003 06:23

I just wonder why the entire thread on recent anti-Semitic events in Syria was deleted from this site. Any ideas?

by mr. fuzzy logic Sun Nov 23, 2003 14:39

Maybe because this is Indymedia Ireland and not too many people are interesting in listening to Mossad propaganda about Syria ... anyway how do you know it was deleted ... it might just have been moved ?

For your information and enlightenment, in case you hadn't noticed, Syria is a country predominantly populated by Semites i.e. Semitic Arabs .... so I presume the "anti-semitic activities" you are referring to are activites directed against Jewish or Israeli interests ... undoubtedly as a reaction against Israeli anti-semitic military activities against the semitic Palestinians ..... you Israelis really have to try and get your anti-semitism under control ....

To conclude, I think that we can now safely dispense with the hackneyed tag "anti-semitic" ... its overuse by Zionist zealots like yourself has resulted in its debasement ....
It has become largely meaningless for non-Jews .... (i.e. goyim cattle like myself) ... and probably also for Jews who have a functioning brain (e.g. Israel Shamir) ....

Unfortunately not everybody sees the world from the same viewpoint as Mossad spooks and IDF trolls like yourself ..... better get used to it ...

by avi H. Sun Nov 23, 2003 15:20

It doesn't seem to have been moved. I might be wrong but I can't find it anywhere. If anyone else can find it, please do enlighten us. There were all shades of opinion on that thread, so whatever your viewpoint, it wouldn't seem terribly democratic (something this site is supposed to be) suddenly to delete it.

The term anti-semitic refers to racist abuse of Jews, something which is occuring in copious amounts daily in the Arab world, even as we speak, in fact. It doesn't matter what term you use, as long as you identify the phenomenon and don't buy into a general denial of its existence. The point about racism is that there is no excuse for it, whatever ostensible reason may be given for it. This is easy stuff, I would say, wouldn't you?

by mr. fuzzy logic Sun Nov 23, 2003 19:28

In fact the term anti-semitic - whatever it may in fact MEAN - is USED to cover a multitude of sins ... ranging from crude racist abuse of Jews to any form of criticism of Israeli foreign policy articulated by non-Jews ...

The word is USED - or one might even venture to say ABUSED - to silence any non-Jewish critics of the State of Israel ... and so in the eyes of most non-Jews it has gradually lost any meaning that it might have once had ....

Funny how nobody ever called Israel Shamir or Norman Finkelstein "anti-semitic" ... but if they were "goyim" intellectuals they would have been crucified for this transgression ...

I certinly wouldn't deny the existence of the kind of "anti-semitism" you are referring to but the Jews are not the only people to be exposed to abuse ...
Whether or not it can be "explained" or "excused" is a matter for debate ... and I would in any case draw a distinction between explaining it and excusing it ....

The simple fact of the matter is that the State of Israel is de facto at war with its Palestinian neighbours and wars usually entail various political consequences and a certain amount of innocent victims .... I believe that you military chaps call it "collateral damage" in your parlance .......

by avi H. Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:04

I would like to invite the moderators of this site to please explain why they suddenly deleted the thread on anti-Jewish events in Syria. Thank you.

by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:51

It was a crossposted article, available on numerous other Indymedia sites. We do not and will not have a policy of deleting articles at will. Over the past week, many articles from all sorts of ideological perspectives have been hidden on this basis. If you want an answer in a hurry, like I've said before, use the contact form. We never get around to reading every single comment, whereas the contact form sends your message directly to a mailing list, to which all editors are subscribed. (Daithí)

by avi H. Tue Nov 25, 2003 18:06

I am afraid I am not persuaded that your removal of this thread was as impartial as you say it was. Even if it was carried on other sites, the comments were not. In any case, I am now posting another thread in a comparable vein. If you delete it, that will say a lot.

by Joe Tue Nov 25, 2003 18:14

Avi re-posts of stuff that is already on the web get deleted all the time here. On your pet issue both sides scream, 'censorship' when this happens which just makes you look DUMB.

Carry on spamming, carry on deleting, carry on whinging.