Come to Shannon to welcome Bush

by David C. Mon Apr 26, 2004 20:20

...as have all other protests 'organized' by the hundreds of squirrelly little Irish activist groups.

A majority of Irish people are against the occupation of Iraq, against the use of Shannon by the U.S. military and against Bush's visit. But this sentiment will NOT translate into any change of policy by either the U.S. or Irish governments, or have any discernable influence of any significance. This is because activism in Ireland has been hijacked by a few hundred ineffective, unproductive losers without the imagination or tolerence to understand or respect the views of others. Irish 'activism' works AGAINST anti-war public opinion in Ireland.

Grassroots gobshites against reality. You are George Bush's best friends in Ireland. You are a fringe of angry little bigots.

Against the U.S./U.K. war machine? OK. Of course. Fair enough.
Against the United Nations?
Against France and Germany (i.e. Rumsfelds antiwar 'old Europe')?
Against the American Democrats?
And undoubtedly against the political parties chosen by 98% of Irish people.

YOU. Yes You. Irish activists. You are a bunch of egotistical losers who are DIRECTLY responsible for the fiasco that anti-war activism has become in Ireland You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

WELCOME EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN IRELAND TO PROTEST AGAINST THE VISIT OF BUSH. WELCOME FIANNA FAIL. WELCOME FINE GAEL. WELCOME PD'S AND LABOUR. WELCOME ACCOUNTANTS. WELCOME SALESPEOPLE. WELCOME HOMEOWNERS. WELCOME PEOPLE WHO DRIVE EXPENSIVE CARS. WELCOME FARMERS. WELCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE FASHIONABLY DRESSED. WELCOME ORDINARY, EVERYDAY PEOPLE.

WELCOME E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y.

by j26 Tue Apr 27, 2004 00:45

Someone's not in good form.

by Chairman - Grassroots Gobshites Against Reality Tue Apr 27, 2004 01:44

For Immediate Release:

We at GGAR disavow any association whatsoever with the above posting. This person is obviously incensed by the ongoing GGAR peace camp and demonstration in a field in Leitrim against the US, UK, UN, EU, NATO, NAFTA, OAS, ASEAN, NASA, FF, FG, LAB, PD, BO, RTE, TV3, ITV, BBC, SIPTU, GAA, FIFA, NAACP, OBE, and basically everything else.

Signed,


The Steering Committee (both members)
Grassroots Gobshites Against Reality

by Stella Wilkinson Tue Apr 27, 2004 09:35

So how are things in Israel these days David ? How are your relatives in the Israeli Army ?

by kokomero Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:06

David C. is correct in his analysis that the anti-war protest, and subsequent opposition to the occupation of Iraq has been taken over by a clique.

Debate on the occupation has degenerated into a pythonesque farce, with open bickering and defections much of it in the public domain on this forum.

Frankly the movement at this point is a disgrace as are your petty personal comments about David C. which are irrelevant!

Finally he is also correct that ALL people who oppose the war and occupation should be welcome.

The same holds by the way for the May 1st protests which have been deliberately hyped by the right (and the extreme left) with the express purpose of PREVENTING a massive turnout.

What a coincidence!?

After all who is going to bring their kids to a protest where they stand a good chance of having their heads cracked or being trampled by the two extremes?

by disappointed anarchist Tue Apr 27, 2004 17:56

Great, another branch of the Grassroots Network calls for a "noise" protest. Any chance of a bit of direct action to shut down Shannon? Get yourselves some megaphones lads & join your SWP mates.

by barry Tue Apr 27, 2004 18:42

just follow the signs for galway, ennis (and even shannon), make sure not to miss your turn off and then straight all the way to the end of the road (make sure not to get confused on the roundabouts and accidently double back on yourself).

bring a few friends, sit down or build a barricade and you've got all the ingredients for a direct action. There you go dear irritated anarchist, you show them wasters in the grassroots and the anti-war movement generally how 'tis done.

presumably you don't actually want people to organise transport down there for you, come up with a plan of action, build awareness and support, do legal follow-up and so on, what with you being an autonomist and all that.......


ps kokomora, I'm sure lots of people would love a kids friendly action over the weekend, since you'll hardly be participating in any of the elitist, extremist ineffectual actions planned, you'll have loads of time to make sure that your action is effective and safe and lots of collaboraters to help you on this newswire.
And if you want to be sure of avoiding the no-hopers then just take care not to stand under the garda helicopter.

by R. Isible Tue Apr 27, 2004 18:55

"David C. is correct in his analysis that the anti-war protest, and subsequent opposition to the occupation of Iraq has been taken over by a clique."

How can it be "taken over" by anyone. Either you organise a protest or you don't. If you don't like it then get together with your mates and organise your own protest. People do, or they don't do. If you do nothing you can complain all you like but it's your own fault.

"Debate on the occupation has degenerated into a pythonesque farce, with open bickering and defections much of it in the public domain on this forum."

Debate on the occupation is pretty uniform in it's conclusion: US OUT. The pythonesque farce is visible only in the twister-like manoeuvers being displayed by the so-called "liberals" that supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Afghanistan for "humanitarian" motives such as "freeing women from the burqha".

As regards open defections and bickering on this forum, well I consider that to be not necessarily a good thing, but the epiphenomena of a good thing: open, democratic debate. I'm glad this forum provides a place for it.

"Frankly the movement at this point is a disgrace as are your petty personal comments about David C. which are irrelevant!"

Agree with you about the comments about David C. I have no idea who he is but he contributes intelligently and his personal details have no place in this discussion. The person that posted them can only have been trying to make everyone look bad. In fact, when I look at this thread I wonder if the people posting here are really David C. and Kokomero. A note for readers: if someone impersonates you please report it using the "Contact Us" link in the top header.

"Finally he is also correct that ALL people who oppose the war and occupation should be welcome."

What? Even people like fascists, racists and nazis? I don't think so.

"The same holds by the way for the May 1st protests which have been deliberately hyped by the right (and the extreme left) with the express purpose of PREVENTING a massive turnout."

Ah, now your trolling becomes clearer and the shallowness of your intellect clearer. There has been no evidence of hyping of Mayday by the left ("extreme left" is a giveaway my friend) and I don't know about the right except for Minister McDowell and Bertie Ahern and I'll agree with you that they and their lackeys have been busy trying to prevent a turn out. After all it's important to divert attention from the real issues being protested: privatisation of our public services, increasinly racist border control policies, easier flow of resources for businesses, weakened trade unions, lower living standards for citizens, greater concentration of power in the hands of undemocratic leaders.

"What a coincidence!?"

What rubbish!

"After all who is going to bring their kids to a protest where they stand a good chance of having their heads cracked or being trampled by the two extremes?"

Your concern is touching. You wouldn't be playing up some of that hype yourself would you?

by David C. Tue Apr 27, 2004 20:44

So you don't like 'so-called liberals'? There goes 30% of your market.
So you don't like 'fascists, racists and nazis', who you undoubtedly define broadly? There goes another 30%
So you think that Irish politics is about ' power in the hands of undemocratic leaders'? There goes another 20%.

Irish anti-war activism is exclusionary. It excludes the majority of Irish people. This is why it is ineffective.
I repeat, Irish anti-war activism is exclusionary. It excludes the majority of Irish people. This is why it is ineffective.
I repeat again, Irish anti-war activism is exclusionary. It excludes the majority of Irish people. This is why it is ineffective.

Take me, for example. I think that the bin tax is a good idea. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified, although the follow-up has been insufficient. I think that capitalism must inevitably provide our economic energy and that government-managed capitalism is a force for good. I think that Ireland is generally well served by its politicians, although there is certainly much room for improvement. I drive a nice car. I have a mortgage. I shop at Tesco. And I loath Bush, his militarism and the US use of Shannon. I am like many or even most Irish people. Can I join the protest? Will I be respected? Is there a place for me?

Irish anti-war activism is the domain of a small group of angry, ego-driven people who care more about strutting about than about effectiveness. They speak for and to other activists - not for the public. They have no respect for moderate, middle-class, ordinary Irish people, and so they have 'pre-empted' the formation of any REAL opposition to American militarism in Ireland, dispite the poll-proven fact that most Irish people are opposed to that militarism. They have short-circuited any serious opposition to the U.S. in Ireland. Shame on them.

by R. Isible Tue Apr 27, 2004 21:31

Your assertions of 30% of the Irish public as fascist etc rob your arguments of any credibility.

As regards the protests, if you feel unwelcome at being beside people who believe that your "managed" capitalism is one of the underlying causes of this and previous wars then why don't you get out there and make your own protest?

Personally I wouldn't be quizzing you about how you can screw profits from the 3rd World and also avoid imperial wars and I doubt anyone else will either.

So the question is are you going to go along to the protests or are you just going to sit here carping about how no one is organising the protest that you and your legions of fellow travellers want.

Don't complain: DO.

That's the whole problem with your and Kokomero's posts: you're whining about what others are actively doing. Get out there and have a Face-Painting-Against-Bush-For-People-That-Drive-Nice-Cars-And-Believe-In-Managed-Capitalism (FPABFPTDNCABIMC - are ideological fanatics that split from the IAWM btw) in your back garden or whatever turns you on, but don't ask other people to stop what they're doing.

by David C. Tue Apr 27, 2004 22:07

I didn't say that 30% of the Irish public are fascist. I said that anti-war activists undoubtedly define 'fascists, racists and nazis' so broadly as to include 30% of the Irish people. For example, what percentage of Irish people are for restricting immigration? Are they racist? I don't think so, but I'd guess you do. See what I mean?

by paulo - undercurrents Tue Apr 27, 2004 22:48

David C and other similar postings reflect the lack of vision to stop this illegal war.

Instead of moaning about irish activists who take nonviolent direct actionn why isnt david and others attempting to understand them?

Direct action worked for ghandi and india, the suffragettes, GM campaigners in UK, black civil rights and thousands of other issues worldwide.

Why do people feel that NVDA is ineffective?
Is it perhaps because it is rarely discussed in the mass media?

by David C. Tue Apr 27, 2004 23:16

On the contrary I think that it is easily the most powerful force for positive social change - as illustrated by the examples that you quote. But think about this:

Ghandi was for the independence of India from the British.
The suffragettes were for the right of women to vote.
GM campaigners in UK are for a ban on the use of GMOs.
Black civil rights leaders were for civil rights for black people in the US.

What are Irish activists for? They are for protests. The subject doesn't really matter.

by Chekov Tue Apr 27, 2004 23:47

Have you ever met one? Because, if you have, I can't understand how you can possibly think this. Nobody that I know is in it "for protests". People take the trouble of organising and going to protests because they want to do something to bring about a better world. Protests are a pain in the arse. For the people involved, organising for Mayday has been a huge sacrifice, taking a week off work from lowly paid jobs, getting slandered in tabloids, sitting up late at night typing out programmes, this is what organising for protests entails. Nobody does it for fun, they do it because they want to make the world a fairer place. And it works. If it hadn't been for the people who give a shit, Mayday would be a government love-fest. At the very least Mayday has already become a beacon of dissent.

by David C. Wed Apr 28, 2004 01:06

I'm not so literal...By 'for protests' I mean that they appear to be for protesting against basically everything. My point is that these protests that are not 'about' something specific, and so they are worse than useless - they are a turnoff and a barrier to effective action. What is the Mayday protest about, for instance? I'm f&#@ed if I know. What ISN'T it about!

Look. I recognize the effort that goes into these events - it is admirable - but I am anguished at the waste of that effort. The strength of capitalism comes from its ruthless focus on outcomes, not on effort. You achieve outcomes with focus, focus, focus.

Focus on opposing George Bush's visit and US military in Shannon. Focus on nothing else. Welcome every single person in Ireland who is opposed to Bush. Exclude nobody. If Adolph Hitler himself wants to come out of hiding and march to protest Bush then welcome him. Don't protest the EU, GMOs, Canadian Seal Furriers, the UN, the Bin tax, etc. Don't turn people off. JUST PROTEST BUSH.

Focus. Its a good thing.

by Elle Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:21

People in the media centre taking a week off from working in lowly paid jobs to stay up all night typing programmes....I appreciate that the Irish working classes are a somewhat conservative group and so they probably don't have much time for you Chekhov (or can I call you KEVIN, since that's actually your name) but your solution to this is very amusing....invent a sympathestic working class out of those involved in the media centre!! Of the people I know involved in the media centre none have lowly paid jobs and in fact most (like your good self) are financed by their rich parents or work in academia - lowly paid committed working class souls they are not !!

by pc Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:38

everything is connected

the subjects "we" choose poverty human rights militarisations are all prosperiong cos not enough ppl are keeping an eye on things


there is focus this weekend its trying to improve the eu and soon it will be shannon but both events are connected by everything else

by Phuq Hedd Wed Apr 28, 2004 23:12

QUOTE: "I don't think that non-violent direct action is ineffective."
ANSWER: And then you go on to list Indian independence and US Civil rights as example. I'll allow you some credit for possible ignorance of the huge amount of actual violence in both of these struggles for freedom, but you can't use them as examples of "non-violent direct action" because they took place in the context of actual or threatened violence. You use the Suffragists as another example: am I not correct in thinking that you would condemn their smashing of windows as "violent"? It's interesting isn't it that there hasn't been one window broken in Dublin in a street demonstration in recent years. So much for violence here.

QUOTE: "Ghandi was for the independence of India from the British."
ANSWER: Gandhi was against the imperial occupation of India.

QUOTE: "The suffragettes were for the right of women to vote."
ANSWER: The suffragettes were against the denial of votes to women.

QUOTE: "GM campaigners in UK are for a ban on the use of GMOs."
ANSWER: GM campaigners in the UK are against the use of GMOs.

QUOTE: "Black civil rights leaders were for civil rights for black people in the US."
ANSWER: Black civil rights leaders (and don't forget the white civil rights leaders too) were against the racist system in the US.

QUOTE: "What are Irish activists for?"
ANSWER: Consider this as homework for yourself David C. Look at the examples above, go read the published statements on this website. You'll get it eventually.

QUOTE: "They are for protests. The subject doesn't really matter."
ANSWER: And David C. is against protests, against doing anything and against reason. We've got the point.

by pc Thu Apr 29, 2004 00:22

your R. Isible - your deep, deep loathing of the Irish public shines through post was very very good although i'd like to know what the public you desribe are doing to show/enact their feelings against us occupation...( i think they are doing some stuff) and how irish activist have definitly prevented them from doing anything

i think ill start a thread on capitalist against us occupation on a dicussion board educate myself

although this is not a dicussion board i think the issue of capitalist against the use of shannon by the usaf and any other army...
needs to dicussed by many here

i reckon theres plenty of people who've could be defined as capitalist (if you were in the habit of defining)who done stuff for the anti-war movement but then alot of the groups you speak of actually actively oppose capitalism and you't can't blame then for that thats where they come from

by Anthony Thu Apr 29, 2004 00:46

David C: "What is the Mayday protest about, for instance? I'm f&#@ed if I know. What ISN'T it about!"

The DGN have printed off 50,000 leaflets which was written to be read by ordinary people. Anyone with half a clue or a modicum of interest in what's going on outside their own personal lives or the soaps should be able to understand the text of the leaflet and realise what it's about.

In the leaflet, the main issues that the DGN are protesting about are neatly divided into sections along with a short list of the Grassroots principles and one section devoted to a description of the kind of alternative Europe that the Grassroots are protesting *for*.

Either David is incredibly stupid (which I doubt) or else he hasn't bothered (wilfully ignorant) reading the material from the web site which is linked to from all of the DGN press releases.

by Anthony - IMSG (personal capacity) Thu Apr 29, 2004 01:06

I know at least one person who's been working in the media centre over the past few weeks and took a week off (unpaid) from his minimum wage job to have more free time to devote to the centre and other groups.

I also don't know how you can decide that Chekov's (whom I know very well) name is Kevin. You should get your facts straight before sneering at and making unsubstantiated claims about those who voluntarily give up their free time to do something to make the world a bit better than it is.

by kokomero Thu Apr 29, 2004 17:05

Despite the bad-hair-days of those who consider themselves intellectually and morally superior, I am no troll and I have no intention of protesting against European enlargement which I believe on balance is a good thing.

Certainly it has been for Ireland and many other EU states and I would hope that it could be an equally positive experience for those in the accession states.

Having worked on the continent for almost a decade during the dark days of the 1980s when things were very bad and emigration was what you did when you finished your education, I think I understand very well the predicament of people in the accession states, and believe they require our help to get out of it.

By definition if the loot is spread around between more people it means that we all have to make sacrifices. Perhaps I am mistaken but isn't this what lies at the heart of socalism?

In Europe I saw how strong trade unions and unionised workplaces raised living standards and working conditions for all and now many of these rights won by our neighbours in Europe have been extended to us through EU law.

Is this a bad thing?

I will, however, be protesting against Bush's visit.

One of my reasons for favouring European integration is that during the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq I saw the malign influence of the illegal Bush Oil-Junta on European politics and for that reason would like to see a united Europe.

By a united Europe I mean that we are not afraid to go our own way in world politics, doing our own deal with our middle eastern neighbours including the Israelis assuming they withdraw to the pre 1967 borders and do not block the establishment of a Palestinian state, spreading the resources and know-how of the present EU members to our less fortunate neighbours.

The alternative is to go with the Americans who want to concentrate all wealth in the hands of very few (Americans), and don't mind whose resources they have to steal, whom they have to torture or kill, or subject to 3rd world dictatorship or stooge government to get there.

by Joe Thu Apr 29, 2004 17:09

'kokomero' if you don't want to be mistaken for a troll you should probably first have read what DGN and AEIP are protesting against. Neither are protesting against enlargement.

by kokomero Thu Apr 29, 2004 18:26

The link given in the previous post http://struggle.ws/eufortress/why.htm does not work, perhaps this goes some way to explaining why people are confused.

Having read the pamphlet by going to http://struggle.ws/eufortress rather than using the link I think I have now understood that people are protesting on a range of different issues many of which are also a concern to me.

However it is still not clear to me if the overall protest is pro-enlargement, albeit with caveats, or not?

by average protester Sun May 16, 2004 12:15

David C's points raise important questions and demonstrate an important weakness in the anti-war movement.

The anti-war movement is SEEN as being exclusionary, elitist, being run by a group who are completely opposed to many facets of life with which many people take no issue.

But this is not because of exclusion, its because of the INCLUSION of the anti-war movement.

The protest against Bush and his policies may attract people who are opposed to the bin tax, it may attract people advocate the tearing down of the capitalist state, it may even attract fascists. But these groups and interests are not what the protest is about - they have their own agendas, and are not likely to draw support from every single soul that goes to the protest.

The anti-war movement is wide, the support aginst the war is wider. If you are against the war, then come to the protest - if you aren't, then don't. If you don't agree with direct action or mass protest, then organise another way of showing your dissent. If you don't agree with standing up for what you believe, then don't bother posting criticism here of people who do. What you can't count on though is for the politicians that pretend to represent the majority of people to do it for you.

But at the end of the day, David C and all other anti-war protesters are welcome to protest along with us all. Don't let our left wing or anti-capitalist ideas put you off - we welcome all support for the anti-war movement. You will not be shunned for being a capitalist or for supporting the bin tax. You may even by surprised by the wide range of opinion that exists at these events. Your contribution to the struggle against the war is welcome, indeed crucial.

This applies to activism in general as well - it may seem that activists have been taken over by a clique, but activism goes well beyond the steering committees and cliques. There will be thousands of people protesting against Bush, don't let your ideas of left wing politics and the irish activist 'scene' exclude you from this important event. Indeed, if you're an organiser, get together your own groups of like-minded protesters to come and join in. Its only while people like you stay out of the protest movement that it is exclusionary.

I say again, Welcome to David C and to EVERYONE opposed to the war to attend and join in the protest.

by not welcome Sun May 16, 2004 12:52

I personally would not welcome those who come to protest against Bush but who have an agenda to sabbotage or actively damage the democratically decided tactics of other activists.

Everyone is welcome as long as they respect the diversity of other forms of protest and act in solidarity with people who have differences of tactical opinion.
This means, Not turning non confrontational protests into confrontational ones, this means not trying to prevent direct actions by using yourself as a human shield or by acting aggressively to other protestors. This means not insulting or putting down the efforts of other groups to the media if interviewed.

There is enough room for everybody to operate autonomously but in solidarity if they so choose. All tactics have their advantages and disadvantages, just because you don't agree with some personally doesn't mean that you are correct and others are wrong. If you want to get involved in tactical discussions, do so at the organisational meetings that will be happening in the weeks before Bush's Visit or continue meaningful discussion on this and other websites.

by Pamela Sun May 16, 2004 13:06

Democratically determined tactics? Decided by whom? Which group and what tactics am I supposed to be 'on board' with? And why must I refrain from making observations to the media in relation to what these tactics might be, or whether I agree with them or not?

I will be travelling to Shannon to protest against the presence of Dubya on our wee sod, but would you all-in-a-huddle boys and girls please cease with the binding us all into an ur-consciousness!

In a 'mass protest' the 'mass' should suggest that there will be a mass of 'us'. Thats, 'us' together. Not a massing of 'you' (or replications, or people like you) in particular. Other 'us'es, as it were, all wee particular individual thingys.

Thats the beauty of 'us'. Get it?

by not welcome Sun May 16, 2004 13:26

Meetings will be completely open for anyone to take part. If you decide not to do this then you have no cause to complain that your voice hasn't been heard. Going to meetings is not a committment to anything other than this particular event. You would not be compelled to join any organisation or be a member of any group before you are given a voice.

If one group decides on certain tactics and then invites others to join in then by joining in you are freely agreeing to accept the decisions made by the group (because you were free to help make those decisions in the first place)

If you do not agree with those decisions you are free to join another group, or set up your own. You can have your own afinity group of 5 or 6 people and take part in other actions as far as you feel comfortable with before splitting off and doing something else.

What is undemocratic is the "announcement" of tactics from a podium before a march decided by a council of people acting in their own interests and where these tactics are exclusive and inflexible and allow no diversity of action.

If you really want to oppose Bush then unified protests are far more effective than the alternative (even if the unity is only a short term media illusion, the point of protesting, other than some kinds of direct action which you probably don't agree with anyway, is to get a message out through the media and into the public consciousness. Attacking other groups in the media can only be interpreted as an egotistical self serving act that can not contribute to the fulfillment of our aims)