Arms Dealers to Converge on Dublin for Weapons Conference

by thumbs up. Sun Aug 22, 2004 18:11

You don't get arms dealers without arms buyers. You don't get legal arms sale fairs without illegal deals.
For some time now there has been newswire chatter on "ethical job options".
I suggest that working in a service industry which supports such events is un-ethical.
Some arms fairs have been closed down or intefered with in the past. The most famous being the 9/11 fair in London which was cancelled as a result of the brokers in NYC "ceasing to exist". An irony that was not lost on protesters on the ground in London that year.

So all of ye, come together on this.

Persuade those who's work it is to build the stands, present the coffee and cakes, clean the hall, guard the doors that this day truly is one they "can take off" / "be sick" / "do their bit". The world has enough weapons. And if that proves too difficult, then persuade the professional trolls in the world of journalism to shine light on these people. Photograph them, profile them, "out them" and their Irish associates.

by x - dgn, sometimes Sun Aug 22, 2004 20:35

yes we should shut it down - but should we announce our plans on the internet in advance? was the bush visit a good example of how we did alright without having a mad big plan blurted out for everyone to nitpick over, and get into the usual dumb frenzy that divides us up into factions? lets think about this one lads...

by xwlrx Sun Aug 22, 2004 22:24

in the spirit of their orwellian double speak - we can shut down their "less than lethal" arms fair with a "less than violent" attack..

by Less than lethal Sun Aug 22, 2004 23:01

I can see it now...

by Joe Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:28

X a call to 'shut it down' from one individual does not amount to announcing a plan. 'Security' is one issue as obviously the cops have less time to plan for and sow divisions around a secret rather than open plan. But honesty is another, we shouldn't trick people into a march and then turn it into a riot.

I think we do need to declare an intention to shut it down and then DGN can decide how secret or public to make the method of how we intend to achieve this. It's worth remembering that the public plans of March 1st and the EU summit resulted in the largest numbers of people willing to take part in such actions to that point in time. So such public announced actions have a role to play that is at least as important as the more secretive stuff involving smaller numbers. Both approaches have advantage and disadvantages, neither is right in all circumstances.

by tintin Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:42

Are you going to ask the Black Bloc to stat away this time? Dont give me any nonsense about it not existing, tactic blah blah. You could at least ask people not to wear masks or attack Media Workers.

by Joe Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:54

Go away SP troll.

SP you know who tintin is, have a word in his ear about trolling will you.

by Chekov Mon Aug 23, 2004 13:49

As Joe says, the article above is merely my own take on this news. It is hardly announcing a plan publicly since there is no plan - I certainly don't have one. The fact that I think that this conference should be shut down is not really going to add too much to the intelligence of the cops - they could probably have figured that out themselves!

by Riot not required Mon Aug 23, 2004 13:58

I reckon if enough noise and fuss is made and enough pressure put on the hotel, exposure of the organisers, etc. this would be pulled before it goes much further.

by jh Mon Aug 23, 2004 14:12

http://www.janes.com/security/conference/llw2004/programme.shtml

by jh Mon Aug 23, 2004 14:13

15.55 Use of Less-Lethal Weapons from Humanitarian perspective Human Rights Organisation
(TBC)

by jh Mon Aug 23, 2004 15:31

http://www.janes.com/security/conference/llw2004/LLWbrochA4.pdf

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Mon Aug 23, 2004 16:50

"It's worth remembering that the public plans of March 1st and the EU summit resulted in the largest numbers of people willing to take part in such actions to that point in time."

This is simply not true - only a handful of people took part in any attempt to breach the fence on March 1st - publically announced plans, often plans period, inhibit rather than facilitate action...for a rather very obvious reason...honestly I think somepeople think direct action is a matter of posting a call out to indymedia...and then hoping other people implement it.

If we want to actually do something, as opposed to grandstanding and posturing, we will not make a big pre-announced direct action plan.
If the IAWM offer a panacea for people who want to 'do something' - your conscience cleared with the 'softest option', then grassroots seem to often offer a panacea for people who want to take direct action.

Is this direct action or just the stuntist fiascos of Class War up-dated?

by Joe Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:13

Read what I wrote Terry, IE "largest numbers of people willing to take part in such actions to that point in time".

On March 1st some 300 people turned up who were WILLING to take part in an action. This wasn't enough for it to go ahead as planned (the plan was not to shove our way through remember but to out number the cops and walk around). . But the 300 who turned up was way in excess of the number who had previously taken part in such actions (max would have been the 150 who had become involved in the more spontaneous mass tresspass of a few months earlier).

And for May 1st there in no doubt that the 4-5,000 who turned up for the Farmleigh march was a much larger number than on any previous occasion.

It's simply not an either / or situation. Yes small group secret actions are liable to be more successful but on their own they don't build a critical mass. Those who take part are easily isolated and criminalised which has a chilling effect on others doing the same. This is quite obvious from Shannon where the most effective direct action (CW5) failed to produce any copycat actions in the years since. Probably because not that many people are willing to face the court cases and the possibility of years in prison that the CW5 (and Mary Kelly) face.

Acts of public definance are capable of attracting much, much greater numbers because the risk is smaller and it is spread over a large number of people. In the longer run this is what is important unless you believe a handful of direct action commandos can move from issue to issue and sort everything out for everyone else.

by tintin's silly hair Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:17

I'm 99% certain that this "tintin" is a troll impersonating the SP member who used to post here under that name.

Either that or someone put angel dust in his cornflakes, because every single one of his recent posts have been to have a go at someone or other. The language is trying a bit too hard as well... I mean who calls journalist or photographers "Media Workers"?

by RK Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:19

This conference is definitely happening, it's organised by Jane's Defence. I'll be attending it myself (press) so I'll let you know all the "really scary and nasty orwellian things that they'll be planning in there." It's non-lethal stuff though and I think the Defence Forces and the Police need to be made aware of these options, though I wouldn't worry, they're unlikely to get any funding to by any of these gadgets.

by Joe Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:25

Tintin you are trolling, pure and simple. You post the same boring crap on every post to do with DGN. It's been responded to 100 times before.

Your just a shite version of the corporate press who also use the same shit in the run up to protests to try and scare people off.

by Plain speaker Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:27

Em....trots!

by Chekov Mon Aug 23, 2004 18:23

To be honest I don't think that there is any necessary contradiction between Terry's preference for secretive actions and more public direct actions.

For a start, anybody who tries to organise something that is intended to be secretive and highly illegal through a large open network like the DGN is going to find themselves in big trouble very quickly. If you do want to organise something secretive you should do it in an affinity group with people that you know and trust.

In my opinion, newer and inexperienced people are very very unlikely to take part in relatively risky secretive action, even if they can find out about them. On the other hand, publicly announced plans for direct action can attract far greater numbers as the risks are far smaller and are spread around more. I'm not the bravest chap when it comes to doing things that could land me in prison, but I'm quite happy to take part in direct actions when there are large numbers of people taking part and the risk is spread around.

But even if you are very brave, I can't see the problem at all with doing your thing alongside a more public and less secretive action. I mean the police are hardly going to let their guard down just because there has been no public call for direct action. To my mind the whole point with having large networks like the grassroots is to allow us to organise things on a bigger scale than local affinity groups could. This necessarily means that actions will not be as secretive because when you are dealing with large numbers of people you aren't going to know them all and the potential for information leaking out is huge.

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating a March 1st style public plan. There is a huge spectrum between a straighforward march, the tactics on March 1st and the CW5 action, for example. Mayday, which was a roaring success, was something of a middle course between the first two. Again, the best tactic for a particular action is something that we always have to consider on a case by case basis. There is no single magic answer.

While some aspects of the Bush visit publicity model did work (in that the police were obviously confused about our intentions), other aspects didn't work (many of us were confused about our intentions too!) and in particular when we broke through the police lines, there were only a tiny number of people who had a clue about where we were trying to go. Also, we should not forget that the real success of amBush protests - delaying the media bus - was more a case of extreme good luck and extraordinary stupidity on behalf of the security services. For some reason they decided to send the bus on a massive detour through the amBush march in order to avoid the IAWM/SWP march. I don't think that we can count on them making that mistake twice!

There are also a number of factors involved in this particular conference which would make me lean towards something that is more rather than less public.

1) It's on in Ballsbridge, which is only 20 minutes walk from Stephen's Green so we can hope to get many people there who are not experienced protestors - in contrast to Shannon

2) The state's media scare tactic, which worked relatively well on March 1st, backfired badly on Mayday. They are unlikely to adopt the same approach again.

3) This is not an official state conference, it is a private affair. That means that there is a real chance that it might be cancelled particularly if the venue and the huge number of high-profile corporations and embassies in the area feel that there will be a large number of militant protestors brought to the area.

4) The police can hardly shut down Ballsbridge to facilitate a private conference and it is likely that the organisers will have to contribute towards secruity expenses, so any extra security that they have to put in place to face down a mass direct action will directly hit the arms companies in the pocket.

5) Direct action against arms dealers is not too tricky to justify, even to our craven media.

by Chekov Mon Aug 23, 2004 18:29

Just ignore Tintin. He has been banging that drum for a long time now. It's really amazing that the SP tolerate one of their members (whose identity is presumably as well known inside the party as it is outside) engaging in these baiting tactics which are more akin to the tactics of the cops than to any socialist.

Tintin, you can organise your own protest with dress codes and armed stewards if you like. You can even organise a militia to defend the media workers and workers in uniform.

by Curious Mon Aug 23, 2004 18:33

You both imply that you know who this tintin moron is. I say name and shame him!

by tintin Mon Aug 23, 2004 19:13

but he sure is a troll - one of the bad ones

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Aug 23, 2004 21:22

I'll be back in Ireland some time in October, and hopefully will be free to participate in the protest. Adam and others at Gluaiseacht have put together some helpful tips for protesters and arrestees at http://www.gluaiseacht.net/projects/legal/docs/actions/bush1103/ which some might find useful. If your browser supports Quicktime, you might like this song to get you in the mood too: http://www.annefeeney.com/Pages/jailforjustice.html

Amnesty, AfrI and Pax Christi have been campaigning on arms trade issues for decades, and should be able to help get people for this too.

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:13

Then again if I recall correctly, on the September 27th demo in Dublin last year (anniversary of the Palestinian intifada) when there was a small black bloc who later went off and blocked Top Oil, several SP members physically and verbally harassed people who were wearing masks, saying they were the "enemy of the workers loike", and caused undue aggression between the two sides, which wasnt really necessary. So I guess what goes around comes around.

DGN would never tell anyone to stay away from a protest. They've been told too many times by other people to stay away themselves, so they're not going to repeat previous grievances which annoyed them. Part of what makes a movement vibrant is its diversity. Trots and other non-DA types are going to have to accept there is an anarchist scene in this city (and country) now which does not want to follow their dogmatic line of thinking - or protesting. This debate is over.

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:17

I wont debate with you unless you use a name of your own. This childish harassment will not silence me. Yes, there are a lot of lumpen anti Trade Union drop outs in the Black Bloc.

by Tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:23

The record of the real tintin is clear, you are the imposter

The real tintin (see link for more)

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:25

Yes, you are right, alternative aspect of my many-faceted persona. We need to think about how to get the largest crowd there - which means working on posters, press statements, flyers, and organising times for meetings and where to assemble pretty much as soon as possible.

All of my bickering about the usual nonsense of who should be allowed protest and who should do what, rather than listening to my own advice and start helping to organise my own party's repsonse, means that maybe I too have contributed, in my own small but definite way, to causing divisions between protestors and/or activists and hence lessened the turnout at any potential demo.

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:39

You are the pits. Do you really think the childish attack that the BB launched on the Garda lines on 1 May is the way forward? Is that going to attract more to future Demos? Is assaulting Media Workers going to make them more receptive to your message?

Whatever about the BB action at the Garda lines not being your responsibility the attacks on Media Workers during the march was in breach of DGN guidelines. How can you enforce guidelines without stewards?

by Ray Tue Aug 24, 2004 13:25

That's easy. We tell people that if they're bad we'll tell Tintin.
"But please Mr. DGN, I don't want to hear about the poor Media Workers. I'll be good, I promise."

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 14:19

There is no "the"/one way forward. There are many ways forward. (trying to break through the police lines on Mayday was one way forward - the fact that the Garda line was even there and not arresting the war criminals inside was enough of a reason to try and push through it.)

Different ways forward include building long term resistance through slow-burn projects and campaigns, but ALSO through fasttrack, direct-action based, street democracy. At the moment maybe the anarchists/libertarians may be still focused on the protest-only side of things, but this is changing as people get more involved and encouraged.

May 1st this year was a great day out - biggest Mayday demo in a long time. In fact, the black bloc on the Mayday demo was the same size as the official trade union Mayday demo a couple of years previously. Go figure.

Resistance comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Oisin, you're going to have to learn that. No amount of your bickering on this site is going to make the DGN say what you want it to. If you are serious about stopping this conference then you should start a dialogue about the differing tactics anarchists and your party use in street demos, and how we can accomodate each other - both physically on the day, and ideologically in the run up to the event.

by SPwatch Tue Aug 24, 2004 14:31

Watch out for tintin. This picture may help you identify him. You are likely to find him hanging around UCD.

Tintin contemplating a peaceful protest.

by Troll watch Tue Aug 24, 2004 14:40

Tin Tin is obviously a shit stirrer, publish his IP address.

by Curious Tue Aug 24, 2004 14:48

Looks as if theres 3 of them. One of them is a longtime poster here. Hes well known as one of the evil twins from the SP. Could it be that the SP are finally trying to disown him because hes becoming an embarrassment? C'mon you can narrow it down to 2 evil twins. Why dont you just get him to stop?

by Beta Blocker Tue Aug 24, 2004 14:56

Here's what 'sellout' politicians do. They get involved instead of having stupid pops at a minority of the movement. Any chance of the CWI getting off their arses instead of pontificating to the rest of us.

by Tintin III Tue Aug 24, 2004 17:16

Simply attack the hotel and destroy anything that belongs to the torturers. Keep breaking stuff until finally we're either (a) all beat up and locked up, or (b) it's all broken and we go home.

Alternatively attack the hotel and steal anything that belongs to the torturers. Sell it, and send money to support victims of torture.

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 17:18

And anyway any 'media worker' who gets in the way of the, by now in full swing, revolution deserves their classification as a counter revolutionary and can therefore be tried by a peoples council (i.e. the Black Bloc workers) and found innocent or guilty. The penalties range from the simple (a coke can 'poor'ed on the head to symbolise their positioning on the wrong, capitalist side) to the extreme (a swift kick in the nuts). The revolution is now out of our hands and we must swim or sink.

by pat c Tue Aug 24, 2004 17:22

But since you mention me I would just like to say that this tintin character is blowing things out of proportion. Yes I ( along with another Pat) did intervene near the Parnell Statue but was angry (dont make me angry...) rather than agitated. I thought a few members of the Block were acting in a stupid manner by attacking photographers. Many members of the DGN made it clear (on previous threads) that these Blockers were not representative and that DGN had a policy of engaging positively with the media.

What tintin is doing is drawing attention away from the fact that the real violence which occurred on that day was carried out by the cops. The cops didnt just baton Blockers they also went for people who were just on the sidelines and the water cannon sprayed onlookers off walls and even "Media Workers" got thumped by the cops..

If tintin wants to see a united campaign then he should quit this constant harping on about stewards and the Black Block. He knows full well that DGN has a principled position against stewards and its not going to be changed by 2001 comments by him on Indymedia.

by jh Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:13

right so i started a thread on another bb to see what the arguements would be around this issue/conference and obviusly it is

well atleast there not guns!
well atleast there not guns!
well atleast there not guns!

and

police have to defend themselves agianst violent criminals
police have to defend themselves agianst violent criminals
police have to defend themselves agianst violent criminals


and anything can be used as a weapon
and anything can be used as a weapon
and anything can be used as a weapon

by tintin Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:18

Some of the same headbangers who were wearing masks on the Saturday made threats against both SWP and SP members at the RTS on the Monday. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of this. On another thread it was accepted that this happened. But it was claimed that these BB were on a solo run. I will waste no more time here. Anyone who tells the truth here is denounced as a troll.

The tintin imitators can now play all they want on this thread.

by jh Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:56

...

masks

by paul c Tue Aug 24, 2004 19:21

Review urged on CS sprays

James Meikle, health correspondent
Tuesday August 24, 2004
The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1289437,00.html

by Exclusive Eye Witness Report Wed Aug 25, 2004 02:54

A couple of mask wearing black block people approached a few SY people on the demo and started taking the piss out of one of them who they seemed to recognise from school. A couple of the SY heads started ripping the piss out of them back about their let's play dress up ninja routine. It was all quite funny to watch. Then one of the BB people grabbed some papers and leaflets out of the hands of an SYer, threw them on the ground and ran away. End of incident.

Truly this schoolboy squabble is the most shocking and exciting news ever covered by Indymedia. Only a year after the event this is quite an exclusive. It utterly discredits the democratic pretensions of both the anarchist and trotskyist movements in Ireland. In fact I suggest that pickets be organised of Thomas Street and that new anarchist bookstall in Temple Bar as soon as possible. Maybe in another years time.

In the meantime nobody had better tell tintin (number 1,2 or 3) that a couple of SY people were up the front at Mayday...

by Enough Wed Aug 25, 2004 03:17

Someone should tell oisin and finghin to cop themselves on and go do something useful, instead of spending half the day trolling here. Perhaps they could spend some of their time concocting a response to some of John Throne's jumbo-sized offerings (but dont post it here)

by pat c Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:14

Heres another report:

Police 'incapacitant' sprays may be more harmful than previously thought
25 Aug 2004

The spray that has been used by English and Welsh police forces since 1995 to incapacitate aggressors may be more harmful than previously thought, suggests research in Emergency Medicine Journal.

The "personal incapacitant" spray or PIS is used for self defence in situations where "lethal force is inappropriate." It combines the compounds CS (o-chlorobenzylidine malononitrile) with MiBK (methyl iso-butyl ketone).

The researchers collected information on 277 cases of PIS trauma submitted from healthcare professionals to the National Poisons Information Service in London for the first nine months of 1998.

Full story at:

by Ruairi Wed Aug 25, 2004 18:27

Just a question folks:

What do you believe police should be armed with the next time some scumbag pulls a sawn-off on them? A taser gun or a baton?

Just a question

It seems like a perfectly resonable conference about alternative tactics at first glance. Let's see what happens at the conference first and then see if they deserve to be condemned. No?

by paul c Wed Aug 25, 2004 18:41

it is a difficult arguement ... but it just like the terrorism acts or the patriot act, the gov say you only have to worry about if your up to something.. no it affects everyone!... it not just that they exist its about their use and misuse and there plenty examples of them being misused....

and so the cops got all these weapons to "defend" themsleves but there no increase in their accountability if they purposely misuse the weapons..

you ever notice how iraq had a ministry for war and america a department of defence?
defence/attack/defence/attack

and the companies that will be at this conference have sold these weapons to countries with dodgy human rights records...

and as with the story above they rush them out without proper independent testing , they don't have clue what they'll do...

by weeler Wed Aug 25, 2004 19:44

"What do you believe police should be armed with the next time some scumbag pulls a sawn-off on them? A taser gun or a baton?"

How often does that happen?
Often enough to necessitate arming then?

FUCK NO!

Capitalism is a permantent state of "civil" war the state is obsessed with arming itself against the people - not because people cant be trusted but because they know they're fucking us over.

by Ruairi Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:26

I know what you mean to an extent, I would dread our police force being armed with lethal weapons as the few occasions they've had to use them in the line of duty it's sometimes cops themselves who get hurt.

However I do think they need more in their armoury then a baton to be honest. Pepper spray would be possibly acceptable, taser probably too strong and liable to abuse. I do think there is a proper debate to be had on the issue.

I am going to this conference (if you lot let it happen of course :-)) in a media capacity so I'll let you know what they're getting up to there with a report if anyone's interested.

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:40

Joe: Firstly if you tell the cops exactly what you are going to do before hand you might just expect them to turn out in numbers.
Secondly before March 1st we knew there wasn't going to be enough people and we would have to alter plans.
Thirdly the "push through police lines" shite is bollox, the only attempt to breach the fence happened by walking around the police, this was done by the same people who would have been doing it had there been no press releases, posts to indymedia, etc, etc..

"the 300 who turned up was way in excess of the number who had previously taken part in such actions (max would have been the 150 who had become involved in the more spontaneous mass tresspass of a few months earlier)."

- except that the October 12th trespass was an actual action - which incidentally was effected through not being open about it, and the same amount of people as turned up on March 1st, turned up at the grassroots previous 'day of action' at Shannon on December 8th (less cops then though), when there was also NO ACTION
- March 1st actually developed in response to this the idea that no one had a plan for December 8th so we would have to publish one before hand.


"And for May 1st there in no doubt that the 4-5,000 who turned up for the Farmleigh march was a much larger number than on any previous occasion"

Ah more re-writing of history - this is to a demonstration which was billed as a demonstration - not as direct action - which is just as well, as the nonsensical attempts to breach police lines at the end of it could hardly be classed as direct action and acheived nothing except for getting 30 people busted.

Joe then goes on to talk about secretive small group actions as if they only alternative to telling the cops exactly what you are going to do before hand, even when you have no notion of what you will face on the day.

The way fiascos like March 1st are rasied SWP parrot fashion as great victories leads me to think not only that such errors are likely to be repeated again, but also that there isn't even an awareness of the problem of the need to organise in a fashion which allows mass direct action - without telling the the cops the exact details - and which can respond flexibly on the day.

This would require something along the lines of affinity groups and spokescouncils and small groups independantly sussing the situation out and planning. This requires some effort. The fact this effort is not taken leads me to think that direct action isn't really the point of all this, as there is some pain associated with putting that ammount of work in, but not half as much pain as associated with a trial.

Which brings me to my central point: the essential failure of grassroots and direct action from December 8th 2002 is that the bulk of it's 'membership' and many of it's most prominent activists are not willing to run the risks associated with direct action.

Which is fair enough, except when people try to present a false face with all this palaver about direct action.

This is manipulative as people turn up at these events expecting a group of people who are up for it.

It ends up giving us something which is neither hare nor hound, with none of the advantages of mass direct action - i.e. you
actually go and do something, and none of the advantages of a regular demo - i.e. more people turn up.

This is a network largely comprised of bookish bespectacled intellectuals not anarchist stormtroopers from the Red Planet. Stop believing Deirdre Tynan.

"Those who take part are easily isolated and criminalised which has a chilling effect on others doing the same. This is quite obvious from Shannon where the most effective direct action (CW5) failed to produce any copycat actions in the years since. Probably because not that many people are willing to face the court cases and the possibility of years in prison that the CW5 (and Mary Kelly) face."

2 points: Firstly there are variations on this theme which don't result in that heavy a sentence, see Eoin, Jenny, Martin.
Secondly when I see outside the four courts when the pitstops are up (they are not all Catholic Workers) posted up here on indymedia I don't recognise any of the faces there, apart from those of the defendants.

If someone wanted to promote action, and inhibit "criminalisation" and "isolation" this is where they would be. Most of this work appears to be done in Dublin by Fairview (I say appears as I'm not sure who all the older anti-war head in Dublin are).
The more of this sort of work is done the more other people will be up for risky stuff knowing that a movement is going to support them.

In any case this and "direct action commandos" is a strawman, Joe knows well enough that I'm hardly Ireland's preeminent advocate of ploughshares actions.

A note of realism would suggest to me an awareness that mistakes were made in the past and we need to find a better way of doing things. The lack of such realism, suggests to me that the point isn't having an impact on an issue AND by doing so building people's confidence and participation - which is surely the point of mass direct action.

If this isn't the point what is? Building our sect by appearing radical?

If we were serious about mass direct action we would have to do some serious revision to what we have been doing, I would suggest:

(1) A lot more prior organisation, forming into affinity groups and spokescouncils (the former to develop their own plans for action).

(2) A culture of defendant support.

(3) A willingness to run risks.

In the abscence of the necessary culture and organisation for mass direct action I would suggest stop engaging in the dangerous buisness of pretending.

Chekov:

"While some aspects of the Bush visit publicity model did work (in that the police were obviously confused about our intentions), other aspects didn't work (many of us were confused about our intentions too!) and in particular when we broke through the police lines, there were only a tiny number of people who had a clue about where we were trying to go"

- well you certainly were Chekov as previous DGN meetings precluded going cross country and ye even sent a delegate down to the west to inform us of this, if you are talking about the second breach of police lines (as I think you are) - I'm still curious as to where people thought they were going - didn't seem to be the right direction for the road Bush was using into Shannon, and an earlier attempt to go around the police by going cross country would have been much more useful from that point of view.

In any case a lot of confusion could have been averted had the 'we are going to reach our objective come what may by going around police' or whatever it was guideline been publicised more before hand - i know it was on the galway bus and to the camp, but this publicity was poor due to workload.

An interesting point about ambush is that once we precluded openly announced direct action the quarters from where the incessant call for direct action was coming promptly gave up on any action on the basis:

(1) It would just be 10 or 15 people doing somethng and the rest watching (possible but hardly a major problem)

(2) A load of people would follow that 10 or 15 and get into something without thinking about it, and considering if they wanted to.

So there was no prior organisation put into action, the sort that would have made all the difference when we were first stopped by riot cops, and there was an easy way around them, or so I'm told.
Yet in the end people who had made the two points above ended up leading the way into another cross country route (one that to me at least didn't seem to lead anywhere - but at that stage I wasn't paying much attention so I may be wrong).

By contrast on December 8th 2003 Dublin Grassroots (the IAWM blockade) at least was pretty well internally organised, at least by prior standards, though it seems the punks, apart from their peculiar dress sense, seem to be the people for this, and were on holiday during ambush.

Now is having a bit of organisation as then and no great announcement about what you are going to do that hard or ideologically unsound? (especially when in reality you cannot know what you will be doing until the day)

On the actual disruption of the summit press conference yes it was an accident and due to police stupidity but it sure wouldn't have happened had we said we were going to block the road Bush's entourage were to use, and in fact we could have blocked that road if we had a bit of prior organisation, as it was a small distance away from where the riot cops stopped us, where there was a way around them. There would have been no way to do this had we made a big direct action announcement.

Furthermore arguments for such included ones where the key was either winning publicity for direct action or provoking the police, both of which smack of stuntism and are not direct action at all.

Also a big announcement would contribute to the sense of a warzone being cultivated by the state - see lines of armour, camo clad gun wielding soliders poping out of APC's on the six o'clock news, and thus contribute to their strategy to curtail participation.

As it was a crowd can simply seperate into up for it and less up for it sections, for instance most people there didn't know about the first police barrier being breached.

We tried this on March 1st, but it didn't work as the publicity was for the action, having the publicity for the demonstration and not for the action, but explaining to people a flag seperation system as they arrive would prevent people getting caught up with something they don't want to be in (to a degree - we cannot be responsible for police behaviour).

by Joe Fri Aug 27, 2004 14:11

Terry you seem to be putting words and concepts in others people mouths rather than trying to understand what is being said. For instance no one I know has declared March 1st as a 'great victory'. So why pretend this is the case?

Other stuff

On Mayday
"more re-writing of history - this is to a demonstration which was billed as a demonstration - not as direct action"

Depends on how you define a direct action. The original purpose of the march was not a direct action. And I argued strongly that it should be just a march (with noise) and that we should make this clear. Then the government banned the march. Turning out to defy that ban then became a direct action as I understand the term.

I don't know if you were around on Mayday but if you were it should have been very clear from the atmosphere that most people saw it as something more.

Direct action doesn't have to involve running around in masks; a lot of the most important actions are from the outside at least quite boring. We do ourselves a disservice when we are dismissive of the smaller steps people take.

"This is manipulative as people turn up at these events expecting a group of people who are up for it."

There is a contradiction here. On the one hand you give out because in some of these actions we told everyone in advance exactly what we would do. But on the other you suggest that by telling people exactly what would happen we were leading people to expect something else? This makes no sense. You can say one or the other, you can't say both (well you can say it but it doesn't make sense).

There is a bit of a problem in people believing the media hype rather than what the organisers say. But I think we are establishing a record of doing exactly what it says on the tin so that problem should diminish over time.

" I don't recognise any of the faces there, apart from those of the defendants."

We are not all students. Many of us cannot easily make court cases at 10.00 in the morning. I'm not happy with that either but I had the same problem with the bin tax campaign where I could get to a 7am blockade but not a 10am court case.

Support for defendants has often been weak but so has just about every other background organisational task. A lot of people are happy to turn up at meeting or turn up on the day of an event but not so willing to do the background work. I suspect this is partly inexperience (so it will also change with time, indeed in Dublin it has already).

"not willing to run the risks associated with direct action"

This is simply not true. What you probably mean is that people are not willing to take forms of action that have a high risk or certainty of arrest. I don't have a problem with that, not everyone thinks getting arrested is useful and so many prefer to take part in actions that reduce the individual risk.

But everyone involved has taken part in actions for which they could be arrested. In terms of the 'prominent' activists, I'm not sure who you mean but many of the long running people took part in bin truck blockades last year in a period when people were regularly being sent to jail. There too we organised actions that reduced the risk (some thought going to jail was in itself a winning strategy, we disagreed). But reducing a risk does not eliminate it; indeed at least one person had a lucky escape because the cops spelt his name wrong.

At the end of the day every individual judges what level of risk they will expose themselves to. You can help people in that judgement by being honest about what you intend to do. And just about every one I know would be much more willing to take a small risk with a large number of people than a large risk with a small number of people. I can applaud the courage of the few people who don't make that judgement but you can't build a movement that way.

Also of course the purpose of direct action is not to get arrested. It is if anything an unfortunate consequence and should be presented as such. We don't want people to feel that they have a lesser part to play because they can't or won't take the same risks as others do.

"A note of realism would suggest to me an awareness that mistakes were made in the past and we need to find a better way of doing thing"

I think people are aware of this so some of the mistakes of March 1st have not been repeated since. But we don't all agree that the publicly announced nature of the action was a mistake. This is one of a number of areas where GG people disagree. (Actually I think its a pretty small minority who think it was a mistake but probably one concentrated in the west)

There were problems with the lack of preparation for reaction to the March 1st announcement. We (stupidly) expected the media to read 'non violent' as 'non violent' so we had no press group prepared in advance to counter the early hysteria. That mistake was not made for Mayday because we had learnt from March 1st.

At base there is a political disagreement here. You think it's easier to get people to go along to a march that promises no action. Other people think that events that are based on clearly defined but limited action can attract more people. It does not help to either personalise this quite legitimate disagreement or insist it is something to do with sect building.

If anything there is a lot more cred in shouting 'by any means necessary' then in saying 'I reckon not many people will want to get busted so lets design something a bit softer'. It's just not very rock and roll.

For some similar reason there are always much fewer people around when it comes to having to argue for and organise a retreat then there are when you want to charge. Defeat can make people turn on each other or more often simply slip away as individuals. But for the foreseeable future all actions will have to end with a retreat.

by tintin Fri Aug 27, 2004 14:15

Its good to see that Terry is prepared to tell the truth. The actions of the Black Bloc on 1 May were an infantile disorder that brought DGN and the entire Left into disrepute.

by divide and conquer Fri Aug 27, 2004 14:24

.

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Fri Aug 27, 2004 15:48

"There is a contradiction here. On the one hand you give out because in some of these actions we told everyone in advance exactly what we would do. But on the other you suggest that by telling people exactly what would happen we were leading people to expect something else? This makes no sense. You can say one or the other, you can't say both"

There is a contradiction here. You are right, but the contradication is between saying this event will be mass direct action - i.e. there is a bunch of people here up for it, and the reality - there isn't, and there will not be. This was the case with BOTH Grassroots days of action in Shannon (December 8th 2002 and March 1st 2003).

(me earlier) "not willing to run the risks associated with direct action"

Joe - "This is simply not true. What you probably mean is that people are not willing to take forms of action that have a high risk or certainty of arrest. I don't have a problem with that, not everyone thinks getting arrested is useful and so many prefer to take part in actions that reduce individual risk."

Inumerable people within the grassroots network are unwilling to risk arrest (never mind trial and certainly never mind imprisonment) and openly say so.
Mass direct action doesn't mean less risk as some minority has to go first.

I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with this when the network goes on to organise actions which in order to succeed must have a core of people willing to run risks. Without this human resource such actions will fail, and what's worse other people will come along expecting there to be that core, which does not exist and then get themselves into trouble on false pretences.


"You think it's easier to get people to go along to a march that promises no action. Other people think that events that are based on clearly defined but limited action can attract more people. It does not help to either personalise this quite legitimate disagreement or insist it is something to do with sect building.

If anything there is a lot more cred in shouting 'by any means necessary' then in saying 'I reckon not many people will want to get busted so lets design something a bit softer'. It's just not very rock and roll."

Huh? Surely I'm the one arguing for the latter course of action, that is, we don't have the capacity for action therefore just organise a demonstration. I would say to people who disagree 'right organise the capacity for action'. I don't see this happening.

Which, along with the fact the complete lack of realism about previous defeats (see March 1st and no I'm not going to trawl the net for where it is described in those terms, suffice to say it is still being held up as an example to follow), along with proposed 'direct actions' which have no chance of success, leads me to conclude that what is on display is stuntism and sect building. Much as with the Wombles proposed storming of the houses of parliament in October 2002, or Class War's "Bash the Rich" marches. Likewise with the lack of a culture of defendant support - this being an essential component of direct action. This isn't personalising the issue (how so???)

And it's not just the issue of participation and direct action, but the fact the grassroots network is incapable of organising any major direct action, for instance something like a mass tresspass or a blockade of Shannon as opposed to say something minor like a blockade of a filling station.

Indeed the issue of participation and direct action is hardly worth arguing about it is an unquestionable truth that nine times out of ten an event called as a demo will have more people than an event called as mass direct action.

I would be more in favour of the latter (though not with a pre-announced plan) if I thought the network was capable of organising such (in total, including defendant support) - a trade off with a lower participation.

But it isn't.

by Joe Fri Aug 27, 2004 16:26

Terry once again you seem to be having a go at something that wasn't said.

The March 1st plan didn't say "this event will be mass direct action" it said "We will attempt to engage in a mass trespass at Shannon airport"

It did not say "there is a bunch of people here up for it" it said "For this action to succeed we need a critical mass of people. We need you"

The text of it is included in the link at the end for those who want to check what was actually said.

For reasons I've outlined to you by email I'm not going to go into the arrest question further beyond noting that I don't agree with your analysis.

"Surely I'm the one arguing for the latter course of action, that is, we don't have the capacity for action therefore just organise a demonstration"

I'm suggesting there is very often the option of a soft (read large numbers, low risk of arrest) option that will bring out numbers and leave people with a some sense of having stood up. Its a mistake to polarise the choice as one between a 'hard core arrest action' and a 'completely safe march'. There is a lot of space in between and a lot of the grassroots stuff has been built on that space. There were and are other more arrest orientated groups in existance (Faslane, CW etc) as far as I'm concerned we were never about replicating that particular tactic.

But your right it is harder to argue for a march then an action and sometimes you do need to argue for a march that is just a march. You seem to be trying to construct a rule that holds in all circumstances and thats what I am arguing against.

It's also not necessary to see March 1st as a 'great victory' in order to see it as a step forward. We seldom win at a single step.

And BTW if your not willing to prove that people called it a 'great victory' you should drop that claim, proof is clearly in your court as there is no way I can think of proving the reverse. All the more so because this is the second or third time you have invented the 'great victory' phrase only to trot out a 'I can't be bothered' when challenged to prove it was used.

by klkalda Fri Aug 27, 2004 16:50

but the fact the grassroots network is incapable of organising any major direct action

what org here is?

by arrested development Fri Aug 27, 2004 16:50

Who repeatedly insisted on and tried to enforce his right to touch the fence with his finger until he was arrested and shipped off in paddywagon .

It would have been amazing if 300 were arrested for the same thing instead of a cat and mouse game that was never going anywhere.

Serious social movements based on NVDA or NVCD whatever you want to call it in democratic countries (No torture in jails / open trials) should tactically fill up the jails and courts at times when there is a vital need for continuing action.

300 arrests at shannon on march 1st for something like insisting on touching fence with an index finger or with a wire cutter would have prevented what was in effect the death knell of the chances of actually getting shannon out of use by USMIL. It could have radicalised loads of people / made the 'terminal' heads choose a side of the argument under very different conditions to arguing against a failed call to Mass NVDA / cost gardai an absolute fortune / clogged up courts / provided a link between generations as parents would most likely have supported the youth.

I'm not arguing for 'lets all get arrested' at this repression xibition - just that a leap of faith in the direction of forcing mass arrests would be a step up from present resistant tactics employed by GN and those who do shit with them at a time when things are serious and the networks want to up the ante.

by asfdasb Fri Aug 27, 2004 16:56

I don't see the point of getting arrested
do something and get out of there...that's what I say ...and if that leads to other people being arrested well nobody should be asked to be martyr

by Eoin Dubsky Fri Aug 27, 2004 18:40

Being arrestable means not stopping where the state tells you to stop at a protest, but still being accountable for whatever it is you do. This doesn't mean that you also do the police's job, answering their questions or signing anything -- they're paid enough to do their work without your help. When the workers at Shannon Airport finally stop refueling the American warplanes they will do it in open defiance of their bosses. But who are we to demand (or even just wish for) such courage from them, if we're too cowardly to even risk arrest?

I say cowardly, though its a strong word, because considering the death and destruction each military flight through Shannon brings it's a scandal that not hundreds of people are filling up the courts and prison cells for resistance actions. The Trident Plougshares campaign ( http://www.tridentploughshares.org/ ) shows that a campaign of open, accountable, nonviolent direct action can help raise public consciousness about state crimes to a point where almost anyone will participate - anyone can defy the rulers.

asfdasb suggests pixies actions instead - "do something and get out of there". I've heard that from a few people before on Indymedia and in the peace movement in Ireland. So how many sabotage actions have been done then? Has anyone phoned in a bomb scare yet? Or even left a suitcase full of sand somewhere? I haven't heard of any such (borderline terrorism?) actions at SNN before. How come? If you want to resist the US war machine, and you don't mind employing some borderline terrorism tactics to get it done fast, then why don't you just do it?

by asfdasb Fri Aug 27, 2004 18:59

you make fair points but i still don't see getting arrested as nescessary

i didn't man go into shannon i meant demonstrate or blockade and then leave without arrest

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Fri Aug 27, 2004 19:31

I'd just like to dissassociate myself from Eoin and Arrest Development's comments I'm not in any way shape or form advocating "arrestible actions" - this is where people go look to get arrested and go look to get a court case. This isn't useful (one) it's often not accountable - it's often only accountable to the state as these actions are (often) taken in secret, and thus no more accountable to your comrades than a pixie action.
(two) no body in the court bar your supporters (who already know) give a shit about international law, or Iraq or whatever, the judge will be asleep while you pontificate - this talks to nobody.
(three) this will effectivly exclude from action anyone not willing to get done (and there are plenty of them - with often good reason)
....and finally it's a waste of time and energy - while there are some actions necessary where people inevitably get done, looking to get arrested on actions where it isn't necessary (most of them) simply means clogging the movement with court time.

On to Joe you will have missed in my last post where I refer to minor direct action - with no arrest chance - e.g. blockading Amien Street, or even much of the ambush stuff due to a positive political context as opposed to major direct action. The latter is not "hardocre arrestible actions" but simply situations where there is a risk. In those situations risk is not distributed evenly, it may be low for some but of necessity it is high for others. Which is the point I'm making and have returned to for clarity.

Seeing as you don't wish to address the kernel of my argument I'm not debating this anymore.

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Fri Aug 27, 2004 19:39

Except to say:

"The March 1st plan didn't say "this event will be mass direct action" it said "We will attempt to engage in a mass trespass at Shannon airport""

errr yeah "We will attempt to engage in a mass trespass at Shannon airport" exactly. And how many did? The same old usual heads, who would have done so if there was no publicity.

Incidentally the posters said "MASS DIRECT ACTION" in big bold letters, as did the promo video.

...now why is it GNAW had to claim October 12th as it's big success when organising for the December 6th blockade, because it was the only successful mass direct action at Shannon ever?

by Eoin Dubsky Fri Aug 27, 2004 20:09

Just one thing: I didn't say an arrestable action is where you go looking for an arrest. At least that's not what I meant anyway. :-) As I said, I think an arrestable action (it's quite simple, think about it) is "means not stopping where the state tells you to stop at a protest".

by Al Sun Aug 29, 2004 22:51

Theres plenty of arguments going on here but before you all rely on other boards be advised that English law is not Irish and you can be given bad advice:

You do NOT HAVE TO TELL THE POLICE ANYTHING - NOT EVEN YOUR NAME unless you've been arrested. The police can ask you anything but you do not have to answer. It is, however, an offence to give a false name so it's best not to give one at all or to give a real one -
No, that is incorrect. Gardai are entitled to ask for your name and address in order to summons you to court in future. Gardai are entitled to ask for your name under road traffic law. Gardai are entitled to ask your name under public order act. Think about it, if you didnt have to answer unless your arrested then how would anyone be summonsed? They wouldnt, we would have to arrest everyone.

There are a number of powers that the police could stop and search you under but they for most of them they need reasonable suspicion that you are carrying drugs, weapons, etc.. Try not to give them excuses to use them (sarcastic replies to questions as to the content of you cigarette, for example, can be used as an excuse to search you under the Misuse of Drugs Act). Whatever power they search you under, you have a right to be given a written record of the search. Always ask for a written record of the search. They also have two powers under which they don't need suspicion of you personally -
Again, there is common law power of search for various reasons. You are not entitled to written record of the search unless an item is being confiscated. You mention Drugs, well you can be searched on the street, no record is required.

The comments about what to do when your arrested are basically right but in some instances the Garda may just talk to you to be friendly, it does happen now and again. Really, you people are so suspicious. As for not signing, it makes no difference, those forms are for you not us. You wont always be handcuffed either.

To reinforce my point this is taken from the website that is offering this legal advise. I have deleted the persons number for their own privacy.
Legal Observers
We need some legal observers for the day. This requires no legal knowledge and basically involves taking down details of arrests, etc. (if any!) and passing the info on to Legal Support. If you would like more info please read the Briefing for Legal Observers and/or get in touch on (I have deleted this).

As for the debate on weapons, I can only speak for myself. I would take a firearm if the force was to be armed but I am not looking specifically for one. I would like to see stab vests and pepper spray issued alongwith rigid handcuffs and extendable baton. Possible a stun gun but I can appreciate the worry that some have voiced concerning abuse of such a weapon. I would also like to see the hat disapear, its simple not practicle in todays world.

by No search please Mon Aug 30, 2004 00:01

AI gives some good advice above, but moves a little too quickly to the situation where you allow the cops look through your stuff. They need to have *reason* for their belief that you are carrying something (e.g. drugs, a weapon, something stolen). If a policeman says he thinks you look like the type who might be carrying suchandsuch, have him explain himself or withdraw his insulting remark.
Did he see you put it into your bag? Did someone come to him saying "stop that man, I saw him put suchandsuch into that bag"?
We don't live under martial law here. Even if you have nothing but your stamp collection, a pencil and a rubber in your bag, it's in your own interest (and in society's interest) that you don't allow the cops run roughshod over your civil rights by peeking into your bag because they feel like it. It's none of their business.
Finally, if you affirm your civil rights by holding them to account like this you might run into a cop who will arrest you (though more likely they'll leave you alone). Fine. So now you're arrested and they can look into your bag. No bother, it's just a stamp collection. If they're stupid enough to take you to court, get in touch with some civil liberties lawyers (ask ICCL) and have a ball. AI mentioned our common law tradition. It's great -- you can change the law!

by Wombat Wed Sep 01, 2004 15:21

A few people have posted messages along the lines of "is it really so bad that the police are allowed to defend themselves", but have not gotten very much in reply.

This is disappointing, cos im genuinely torn on this issue and want to hear the arguments against the conference.

Someone said something about these companies selling to regimes with dodgy human rights records -but surely "less than lethal" weapons replacing lethal ones is a step towards improving human rights in these countries?

Can anybody give a satisfactory answer?

by Joe Wed Sep 01, 2004 15:41

The role of these weapons is discussed on the other thread on this conference at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66325

In summmary they do not replace lethal weapons but are used in cirumstances where the cops would not use such weapons. Examples are provided of children killed in the north by plastic bullets.

by RK Wed Sep 01, 2004 15:50

I don't think people here can answer this, because as I've said there is a need for deterrent (non-lethal) and there is also the undeniable fact that modern policing often requires more then a baton and a notebook. Most posters here argue about how they should protest and what tools they should use (with both extremes voicing their opinions) while they believe law enforcement should not have that choice. I've said before, I'm no great admirer of the cops but I do think this conference is being made far too much of by people here.

What about the Defence Forces too. Kosovo in March this year for example-protestors whacking them with sticks, stones and petrol bombs. Their performance and behaviour, as always, was disciplined and exceptional. I'm sure some non-lethal alternatives would be appreciated by our forces while on peacekeeping duties. They would far rather use a pepper spray on a protestor then a round from a Steyr rifle.

There is no conspiracy folks

by Joe Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:30

There is no need for a 'conspiracy'. There is tons of documentary evidence of 'less=lethal' weapons being used to torture people, to suppress protest and to terrorise 'enemy' populations. That's how they were used in Ireland, there is no need to invent a conspiracy at all!

by RK Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:46

I know there isn't but you know yourself Joe, there are those here who seem to think there is.

I don't think people realise how good they have it. Ireland is not perfect by a long shot but as countries go, I don't think it can be classed as a bad, highly dangerous or nasty place to live. It is a healthy democracy, as modern democracies go. I hate the current government though, just for the record.

What is your response to my point about the Defence Forces having access to non-lethal capabilities?

Misguided and all as the cops can be on occasion I don't believe they are made up of a willfully malicious, sadistic or dangerous bunch of people.

I stand by my views that this conference is nothing but a normal business conference, which is (like it or not) part of a legal global trade. A business which will always, always, be in existence.

This conference will come and go either way guys. Imagine how many of these things Janes organise a year, they're a huge company. I'm sure they're well used to preparing for protests and carrying on regardless. I'm sure this happens everywhere they go.

by Joe Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:50

1. This is an international event, note that one of the speakers is LA sherriffs department, another is West Midlands police.

2. People opinions of the Irish police tend to be formed by their experience of them. I've seen 'less lethal' batons and water cannons used by them on people who were simply at a protest on several occasions now. I wouldn't trust them with what they have never mind additional equipment.

by RK Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:07

I think that's a little OTT. They don't even have their own water cannon. They had to lease the one for May 1st from the PSNI and that was only on 'shower strength' according to one officer. They also deployed in soft uniform (regular hi-vis coats and normal uniforms) and kept the riot gear back-although they all carried it and considering the day that was it who could blame them. I don't think, RTS 2002 excluded, that they project a menacing aura at all.

In fact, in the words of a cop I spoke to recently, their brief is to not respond in the way many protestors want them to:
i.e as the jackbooted footsoldiers of those sinister forces in Leinster House. Come on-how menacing is the Irish Government???

Are you saying that the words of the LAPD or a British police force should not be heard at an international conference. Are West Midlands police and LAPD full of nasty officers who are rotten to the core. People go to this conference to hear what they say and make an informed decision on whether they could be used in their own country. That's how conferences work, any conferences, it doesn't matter if it's about biscuits.

You never responded to my point about the Defence Forces either? Do you object to them getting new training aircraft, APC's etc?

We'll probably end up going around in circles here Joe and never agree! Such is life. Good luck

by Joe Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:14

"and that was only on 'shower strength' according to one officer"

Yeah this is an odd story they put around considering 'shower strength' blasted people off walls and knocked people over resulting in a couple of broken bones. Go along to the indymedia video screening and you'll see some footage of 'shower strength' in action. All in all a pretty good illustration of why they can't be trusted to even own up afterwards.

But your right we are unlikely to agree.

by RK Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:25

It's a bloody water cannon! What do you want it to do, blow bubbles. I'll tell you one thing-it has a far more controlled capability then the full beer or soft drink cans which some people were throwing. And often at photographers (like on O'connell st) for some bizarre reason. In my point of view-people (a tiny minority) were just looking for some attention. Strange what drinking all day does to some people. These people cannot be excused for any reason, not any. Broken arm, bloody nose? Few weeks before your exams? Tough shit.

Anyway, you still never answered my points regarding the defence forces and how they could benefit from having non-lethal alternatives. Why is that??????

by R. Isible Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:27

QUOTE: "I stand by my views that this conference is nothing but a normal business conference, which is (like it or not) part of a legal global trade. A business which will always, always, be in existence."

I wonder how many people said that about the slave trade?

As regards your question about the need for weapons which are mostly non-lethal and are sometimes used for torture and the need to give them to the police: if "some scumbag" has a shotgun and is confronted by a policeman who attempts to pepper spray him then you can be sure that the scumbag will use the shotgun.

Incapacitating torture weapons like pepper spray are no use against weapons, so your argument falls on that ground.

Finally your dismissal of "broken arm, bloody nose" with "tough shit" speaks volumes about the mindset of people that want access to pepper spray and water cannon.

by pc Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:30

that would be a group of soldiers going to foreign country for "humantitarian reasons..." hmm never would they ever abuse anyone

or even soldiers in their own country doing peacekeeping duties now look at the examples of the patten report above for our waryness over that

and your saying (althougth they may be cleaned up abit now ) that the lapd are not full of corrupt and malicious individuals? think back a few years will ya?

aslong as these conferences go on they'll be protest thats part of life too...

why exclude rts 2002 from the conversation?
a perfect example of us not simply wanting no non-lethal weapons but more importantly accountability when they are used?

today we have people being held hostage in russia god lets hope that the russian don't use those "non-lethal" gases again!

hey anyone in the program they said someone was going to use the queens day riots in holland as an example of good practice can anyone find some alternative views of that occurance i couldn't?

by RK Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:35

I did mention RTS 2002 earlier. As for the Defence Forces, I have observed them in Kosovo on two occasions and you would want to see the respect they have amongst the local communities. I actually have some pictures of their work there if anyone is interested. Or would that just blind you all too much with the truth?

by pc Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:44

there is no doubt that armies and police can act in proper manner, selfishlesly, put their life on the line and care for people, but when they go off the rails or go crooked corrupt or violent then its all covered up .. that is the truth... and for aslong as such actions are covered up it will mar those that do good work so its up to them

by alex Mon Sep 13, 2004 02:40

don't you mean selflessly

by ZXBarcalow Mon Sep 13, 2004 16:43

“Broken arm, bloody nose? Few weeks before your exams? Tough shit.”


Tough shit? Peaceful protesters get injured and you say “tough shit”?

Oh and as for throwing things at reporters, you seem very annoyed about that, but not when the “controlled capacity” of your precious water cannon was fired at reporters on the wall. Is that hypocrisy I smell?

by Ruri Mon Sep 13, 2004 16:48

Water cannon = Legal law enforcement tool

Prohibited gathering and throwing missiles at uniformed law enforcement professionals=illegal

It's simple really.

I'm not a cop so don't bother

by ZXBarcalow Mon Sep 13, 2004 17:01

Are you saying that everyone who was hit or injured was "throwing missiles at uniformed law enforcement professionals"? Even people sitting on the wall?

by SD Mon Sep 13, 2004 17:04

Of course its legal for the state to attack anyone who defies it. And of course it is illegal for citizens to refuse to comply with the dictates of the state.
After all, it is the state which decides what is acceptable or not, and makes the laws to suit itself.
That does not make them morally right.

As for 'Ruri' being or not being a cop, I would accept that he is not a cop. Just a failed cop, perhaps.