Demilitarise Shannon Airport: Dublin Meeting with Aquitted Ploughshares

by AWI Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:33

Anti-War Ireland in Belfast have organised a similar public meeting to be held on Tuesday, 12 September, at 8pm in Jury's Inn in Great Victoria Street.

Speakers will include Deirdre Clancy (Pitstop Ploughshares and AWI), Ciaron O'Reilly (Pitstop Ploughshares and Dublin Catholic Worker), and a speaker from Anti-War Ireland.

by Dublin Anti-War Irelander Thu Aug 24, 2006 15:43

It should be mentioned that this will be the Pitstop Ploughshares first public meeting in Dublin since their amazing acquittal. The Cork branch of Anti-War Ireland organised a successful meeting with them shortly after they walked free, but this will the first chance that Dubs have had to reflect on what happened at the trial and where things are going now. Shannon remains a hub airport for the US military and this meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss what we can do about this.

by newswatch Sat Aug 26, 2006 18:02

Daily Ireland carried a report on this meeting yesterday. The piece by David Lynch hinted that the plans to demilitarise Shannon, mooted by Ciaron O'Reilly, might be expanded on at this meeting, which will be the Pitstop Ploughshares first outing in Dublin since the unanimous acquittal.

here's the link:

by newswatch again Sat Aug 26, 2006 18:04

Last link just brings you to the paper. Here's the link to the actual news report:

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_ticket=K8EAOE21QG...opp=1

by anti-war Sun Aug 27, 2006 13:22

With most of the papers blithely ignoring anti-war activity in Ireland, you gotta hand it to Daily Ireland for maintaining steady coverage of the war and anti-war opposition. It's anti-war line has been great with hard-hitting front pages and solid reportage. Their Dublin correspondent, David Lynch, is very good on these issues (I think he spent time in Palestine last year). Down south, the Irish Examiner isn't bad either, though much less consistent and it isn't really supportive of the anti-war movement in the way that Daily Ireland is.

You'd hardly know there was an anti-war movement if you relied on the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, except that is for occasional quotes from Richard Boyd Barrett of the IAWM, as if he speaks for the anti-war movement. Depressing really. Anyway, long live Daily Ireland!

by observer Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:39

The Irish Times is a write-off regarding any progressive street campaigning. It's not just the anti-war movement that they blank. I wonder will they send a reporter to this public meeting? In terms of the campaign to demilitarise Shannon airport, it could be an important event. No doubt, however, the Irish Times will be somewhere more 'respectable' that evening.

by anti war Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:13

There does seem to a serious problem in getting coverage of anti war stuff in media across the whole island. I pick up Daily Ireland sometimes and I find it an interesting, frustrating, stupid and smart publication sometimes at the same time! It's good on issues like poverty in the south and the war (Iraq, Palestine and the North!) but to tell you the tuth I do not like tabloids as a rule and the huge headlines and the smart arse "quick witted" lines. Although it does have a number of good journalists working for it and someting like it is needed to counteract the right wing (British) tabloids that are everywhere on the island!

there probably is a need for a broadsheet that is left wing like the Guardaian in Ireland. But for the time being we have to do with Village and D I.

by JP OZ Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:46

Most people read tabloids. Read John Pilger on the decline of the left wing tabloid in England. He covers it in oe ofhis books...is it "Heroes"? could be a later one? Another Aussie Germain Greer, Clive James, Barry Humphries making a living in England criticising England. You got to hand it to 'em. Rolf Harris came out aginst the Trident nuke subs!

Daily Ireland isnot the Guardian, would do better if they had cinema section...I'd buy it more often. they have done great on the war. The English "Mirror" did the same earlier on in this war until the establishment went after and destroted the editor. They ven had John Pilger wrting for them again.

This is the first English war the Church of England hasn't supported according to the Bishop of Bath and Wells

by Cork a-war Sun Sep 03, 2006 14:00

Daily Ireland is neither the the saviour of those with anti war opinions or the simple provo loving propaganda sheet that some think it is/
It gives a column to Patricia McKenna (and other non PSF's like T McKeanery and Frank Connolly) even though she is a rival to SF in the next election, but at the same time its a capitalist paper and is not always left wing.

I think its content is mixed, but for thoses who are anti war I think its has given us a fair crack of the whip anyway. There is no other papers out there that give us that.

by Ciaron Sun Sep 03, 2006 23:12

Elmer Maas, pictured here as one of the original Plowshares 8 that disarmed nuclear weapons equipment at General Electric Plant Sept 9 1980.
Pictured to the right of Elmer is the late Phil Berrigan, to his left Fr. Carl Kabat OMI presently imprisoned for the recent WMD Plowshares action on nuclear ICBM silo in North Dakota

http://www.plowsharesactions.org/pictures/plowshares8.jpg

Service was conducted by fellow member of the Plowshares 8 Fr. Dan Berrigan SJ on Hiroshima Day '06
Photos-
http://www.jonahhouse.org/Aug06FRinvitation.htm

Nonviolent Resistance Following the Burial at the Enola Gay Exhibit at DC "Air & Space Museum"
Photos-
http://www.jonahhouse.org/F&RAug06EGimages.htm

Background on Plowshares 8
Report & Photos-
http://www.plowsharesactions.org/webpages/plow8.htm

by Update Mon Sep 04, 2006 09:43

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/paul_donovan/2006/0....html

by redjade Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:27

Two other defences are also open to them: "reasonable excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act - that they acted to prevent damage to property, in this case the property of Iraqis - and "necessity" or "duress of circumstances", that they acted to prevent a greater evil.

Last July, five members of Pitstop Ploughshares who were charged with criminal damage for disarming a US Navy plane refuelling at Shannon airport a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war were acquitted in Dublin after arguing successfully that they had a lawful excuse because they acted in order to protect life or property in Iraq.

read the rest at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1864319,00.html

by antiwar Mon Sep 04, 2006 15:18

Great to hear that the Pitstops are speaking in Dublin. Should be a very interesting meeting, especially to hear Ciaron elaborate on his proposal for a Shannon shutdown. What about Galway, though? Any meeting planned for the big G? Are Galway Alliance Against War going to organise one? Are there any Anti-War Ireland members there that could put on a meeting? A meeting in the west would be good and one at Shannon itself as well. Put the fear of God into them.

by Media Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:03

Ciaron O'Reilly will be interviewed about Thursday's meetng on talk back Clare FM at 10 am Tuesday Sepy 5th.
Daily Ireland will probably cover the meeting in their Wed Sept 5th edition.

by OZ Tue Sep 05, 2006 21:16

http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/38612

by Anti-War Irelander Wed Sep 06, 2006 15:02

Daily Ireland has a piece today advertising the meeting and the following interesting feature as well on Shannon:

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_ticket=OGA5OZ7OBH...psv=1

by Solidarity Wed Sep 06, 2006 18:00 cairns, North Queensland, Australia

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/121452.php

by Update Wed Sep 06, 2006 22:45

Forty new Gardai are due to be posted at Shannon airport to protect it from the threat of Anti War Activists.

http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=76516&pt=n

by Solidarity Thu Sep 07, 2006 07:19

http://www.jonahhouse.org/WMD%20Here%20Plowshares/Trial...t.htm

See www.jonahhouse.org
for more background information for more background information on "WMD Plowshares Here! action and trial

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 07, 2006 13:25

Little coverage in the Irish media was given to a most alarmist speech made by George W. Bush to an association of U.S. military officers last Tuesday, Sept. 5. He declared that the United States must battle not only likely or even possible threats from terrorists, but the most off-the wall statements in the Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda video about a mystical global Islamic “caliphate.”

Adopting some of the most extreme rhetoric drafted no doubt by his neo-conservative advisers, Bush also broadened the “war on terror” beyond al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and the Sunni-dominated Iraqi insurgency to include Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shiite government of Iran.
“As we continue to fight al-Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia extremists, who are learning from al-Qaeda, increasing their assertiveness and stepping up their threats,” Bush said.

“This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East,” he continued. “And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al-Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation’s resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.”

So, as Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have one thought fixed in their minds: they will be voting on whether to commit the nation to fighting World War III against large segments of the world’s one billion Muslims. Bush also cited his determination to defeat Hezbollah, whose political and military profile has been greatly strengthened as it battled and stopped the Israeli army when it invaded Lebanon over the last few weeks.

Bush referred to Hezbollah’s leader as “the terrorist Nasrallah,” suggesting the United States has joined Israel in its determination to kill Sheikh Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah who was rated the most respected leader in the Middle East by an August 2006 poll in Egypt - one of Washington’s staunchest regional allies. Ranked second in that Egyptian poll was Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another target of the Bush administration. By contrast, Egypt’s pro-American president Hosni Mubarak wasn’t even in the top 10, coming in 11th. Polls across the Middle East also have shown almost universal disapproval of the Bush administration and its policies.

So, Bush has set the United States on course to battle not only al-Qaeda and the fighting resistance in Iraq but Islamic political leaders who have widespread support among the Muslim masses. From any rational point of view, how the United States would win such a war or even assemble the vast numbers of soldiers needed is hard to comprehend.

World War III'

Bush’s virtual declaration of war on the Islamic world ranks as possibly the most ambitious military plan in American history – and without doubt the most reckless. This so-called “long war,” which Bush’s followers hail as “World War III,” would mean fighting large portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of about one-sixth of the planet’s population.

Nevertheless, in his address to the military officers, Bush talked bravely about how confident he is that the United States will win this war. “America will not bow down to tyrants,” he declared to applause. Bush’s experience over the past five years, however, suggests that his strategy would require a full-scale transformation of the United States into a warrior nation, committed to a virtual endless struggle against any and all Islamic extremists who harbour thoughts of power, no matter how fanciful or unrealistic those imaginings might be.

A key point in Bush’s argument is that al-Qaeda has expressed a dream of creating a “caliphate” reaching from Spain to Indonesia. Bush described the steps to this empire as starting with “numerous, decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they can plan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.”

But the reality is that prior to Bush’s presidency, al-Qaeda was a marginal movement in the Islamic world, driven out of countries across northern Africa, hounded by secular governments in the Middle East, expelled even from the Sudan and despised by the Saddam regime in Iraq.
In summer 2001, as Bush brushed aside CIA warnings about bin Laden’s plans to strike inside the United States, al-Qaeda leaders were holed up in caves in Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington – and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan – bin Laden fled to the mountains of Tora Bora where he apologized to his followers for leading them to what looked like defeat both militarily and politically, since the vast majority of Muslims had joined the rest of the world in condemning the 9/11 attacks.

At that crucial moment, the Saudi millionaire set off on horseback along with a small band of supporters and was surprised to find that U.S. troops had not been ordered to cut off al-Qaeda’s escape routes. Bush already was shifting his focus to Iraq, which was governed by a secular dictator who had persecuted Islamic extremists like bin Laden.

This must rank as one of modern history’s worst military blunders. But in his Sept. 5 speech, Bush, defending himself and his generals, instead cited other historical failures – what he called missed opportunities to eliminate Lenin and Hitler when they were living in obscurity and writing about their improbable dreams of power.

“In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called ‘What Is To Be Done?’ – in which he laid out his plans to launch a communist revolution in Russia,” Bush said. “The world did not heed Lenin’s words, and paid a terrible price. …“In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

But the problem with Bush’s history lesson is that wiping out some future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered objectionable or threatening at that time. While “predictive assassination” might eliminate a Lenin or a Hitler, or a Connolly and a Pearse, or Guevara, it also might kill a Mandela or a score of other revolutionary leaders.

What Bush appears to be advocating is the end of free speech and free thought, or at least the regulation and punishment of speech and thought that his cabal disdains. Bush is extending his concept of “pre-emptive war” – launching attacks against countries that might present a supposed future threat to the United States – to “pre-emptive thought control,” eliminating political opponents who might pose some future threat.

In another chilling passage in his speech, Bush laid out a scenario for labelling criticism of him in the U.S. news media, and of Blair in the UK media, as part of al-Qaeda’s terrorist strategy. Bush claimed that bin Laden wrote to Taliban leader Mullah Omar about launching “a media campaign … to create a wedge between the American and the British people and their governments.”
Bush said this media campaign would send the American people messages, including “that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties.” Bush continued that bin Laden’s media plan “aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.”

Bush cited this supposed al-Qaeda manipulation of the U.S. media as one of the reasons that “bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. And they’re wrong.” As Bush defines domestic criticism of his war’s costs “in finances and casualties” as part of a terrorist scheme, it’s not hard to imagine how Bush’s devoted followers will react. Any expression of concern that Bush is charting a course toward mad destruction will be attacked as somehow acting in concert with terrorists.

Though Bush has said that his goal in waging his vague and seemingly endless “war on terror” is to defend freedom, the reality behind Bush’s grim vision is the emergence of an American totalitarianism where objectionable thought will be repressed and dissent will be equated with treason.The President has now made clear that he wants the Nov. 7 congressional elections to be a referendum on whether Americans will follow him into this dark future.

From a man with a rather questionable command of language, this scenario is chilling indeed…it outlines a desperate attempt to frighten people – to make them run for cover and support their ‘defenders’. It spreads and reasserts Islamophobia and racism of the worst kind. And begs the question what will Bush and his cabal actually do if they lose the elections? To follow.

by pat c Thu Sep 07, 2006 15:49

"The Iranian President, as you corectly point out, may be the head of a very conservative regime - yet he was voted in by around 70% of the Iranian people, in a genuine election,"

He was not voted for by 70% of the Iranian people and the election was not genuine. I cannot believe that you are unaware of this. The candidates for election have to be approved by an Islamic board of Guardians. If you are not a devout Muslim then you dont get to be a candidate. If you even challenge the idea of rule by the clergy you are not allowed to stand. The same holds true for candidates to the Parliament.

"The list of all the people who have officially registered to run for the post is not available to the public, but the Guardian Council published a final list of six approved candidates on May 22, rejecting all independent candidates and some candidates from the both wings, specially the reformist candidates Mostafa Moeen and Mohsen Mehralizadeh."

If the Catholic Church had a veto over who could stand for election in Ireland would you regard those elections as democratic?

The Iranian President allegedly got 61.69% of the vote in an alleged turnout of 60%. This was in the second round. In the first round he got 19.48% of the vote. Quite an improvement. Obviously someone made sure people voted the correct way in round two.

"After the first round of the election, some people, including Mehdi Karroubi, the pragmatic reformist candidate who ranked third in the first round but was the first when partial results were first published, have alleged that a network of mosques, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps militiary forces, and Basij militia forces have been illegally used to generate and mobilize support for Ahmadinejad. Karroubi has accused hardliners of rigging the election and has explicitly alleged Mojtaba Khamenei, a son of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, among the conspirators. Ayatollah Khamenei then wrote to Karroubi and mentioned that these allegations are below his dignity and will result in a crisis in Iran, which he will not allow. As a reply, Karroubi resigned from all his political posts, including an Advisor to the Supreme Leader and a member of Expediency Discernment Council, on both of which he had been installed by Khamenei [2]. The day after, on June 20, a few reformist morning newspapers, Eghbal, Hayat-e No, Aftab-e Yazd, and Etemaad were stopped from distribution by the general prosecutor of Tehran, Saeed Mortazavi, for publishing Karroubi's letter."

Come on Michael you say you support the WPI, how are you doing that by giving legitimacy to a dictator?

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 07, 2006 15:49

Hey 'lies'

For an Israel supporter you're going over the top - you have thousands of hostages in your prisons with no trial or charge - you are continuing to kill people, including children in Gaza, you killed over a thousand innocents in Lebanon and made tens of thousands homeless....and left US-made cluster bombs behind that are continuing to maim and kill...so stop talking of stoning and ribbons.

If you can read and understand what you're reading, which I very much doubt, you will see that neither the awi-er nor I support the Iranian mullahs - it's the Iranians and the people of the region that do. The same way that we feel it's appalling that only 20% or so of Israeli citizens opposed the murderous and barbaric invasion of Lebanon.

But that's the truth.

So stop writing nonsense -

by PaddyK Thu Sep 07, 2006 15:53

Funny how when someone takes a spotlight and shines it on the menacing truth lurking behind the talking heads that front the world's greatest democracy or highlights the atrocities of the world's most moral army someone steps into deflect that light.
Invariably, they will deflect it towards one of the surefire Boogey men of the Islamic world. The Taliban... Baaahhh or Al queda..Baaaahhh or in this case the Iranian Mullahs...Baaaahhhh, fuckin hell !

How utterly predictable it all becomes after the seven hundreth time that, rather than deal with the content of a statement, these closet Islamophobes will always try and put you sitting hand in hand with some popularly loathed Islamic figure and say "shame on you Blab blab". Notice how this one did not pick up on the presence of a Jewish figure Ariel Sharon in MichealY's list of terrorist Icons. Even though he was found in a commission of enquiry to be responsible for the slaughter of innocents in Sabra and Shatila. No its the Iranian Mullahs who are boogified. That is because these little snipers know its not on the programme to come with the likes of "What about the Israelis"? No..thats not the message they are sending .. Its "what about the Mullahs" ? Boo!

Good piece MichaelY, plenty of food for thought.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 07, 2006 15:58

Patc

I don't want to start giving legitimacy to anybody. We have discussed the issue of the Iranian regime before and I stand my ground. The only two points you should register is that (1) the Iranian President's popularity is increasing after his stand re: the nuclear issue and his support of Hezbollah and (2) whatever he is we cannot condone any attempt to assassinate him - which was the main point of Bush's stance.

Hope to see you tonight at the Ploughshares meeting, perhaps to have a pint and discuss this further.

by lies Thu Sep 07, 2006 16:08

Notice how this one did not pick up on the presence of a Jewish figure Ariel Sharon in MichealY's list of terrorist Icons. Even though he was found in a commission of enquiry to be responsible for the slaughter of innocents in Sabra and Shatila. No its the Iranian Mullahs who are boogified

Err no i deliberately ignored it, but whilst Sharon you say was responsible for slaughters in Sabra and shatila by the militias(i presume u refer to) and that was INDIRECT RESPONSIBILITY--not like The Great YASSAR whose PLO butchered 30,000 Lebanese and he executed some personally as he also did to fellow arabs in Jordan ,as happened on that ship shooting a disabled Israeli,
take your moral high ground elsewhere

by lies - Free Press For Iran!!! Thu Sep 07, 2006 16:25

If you can read and understand what you're reading, which I very much doubt, you will see that neither the awi-er nor I support the Iranian mullahs - it's the Iranians and the people of the region that do

Indeed resort to insult, tis typical and expected, but if you read what i said you will see i said that these People of Iran et all have no choice because they are not democratic states, i never even mentioned you or awi opinions on the great President of Iran
have a read, tis out of date but i think you need to brush up on the status of democracy in the m/east

by pat c Thu Sep 07, 2006 16:26

"2) whatever he is we cannot condone any attempt to assassinate him - which was the main point of Bush's stance"

I am totally opposed to US intervention in Iran. Change must come from within. However rebels have often assassinated dictators. If the Iranian resistance assassinated the dictator then I would not condemn it. Its up to them to decide how they will fight against the theocracy. The Iranian President is just as much a legimate target as a conscript soldier is.

In the past the Iranian Resistance have assassinated both a President and a Prime Minister. Did you condemn that at the time?

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 07, 2006 16:47

Hi Patc

I am not going to continue this debate with 'lies'....he is or she is what (s)he is and that's it.

Now the discussion on assassinating political figures touches a very different dimension. My article on Bush's World War III above focussed on the US Government's stated wish to assassinate the Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership..... the same way that in the past they talked about assassinating Fidel or the Nicaraguan leaders, or more recently Chavez. And this is not empty talk - the Israeli's repeated the same rant re:Nasrallah very recently. And they're assassinating the Hamas leadership step by step.
So, Point 1, we must be against, we must argue against and stand against any such warmongering and State terrorism!!
Point 2 - you know that I, and the rest of us in the iawm who see Iran as a potential target of the Empire, have been monitoring very closely the policies, statements and tactics of the Iranian resistance to the mullahs. As the armed component of that resistance to the Iranian regime is at best, right now, incipient, and quite open to manipulation by the CIA and the like, as much as the Taliban (and the Saudi millionaire) were ten years ago, it would be foolish for you Patc, or me, or any Irish person, to pontificate about assassinations of Presidents and PMs in other countries....so, no thanks, I am a member of the Irish Anti War Movement, we are an open, public, legal organisation, one of a number anti-war organisations, and our policies on the war and US warmongering on Iran are there for all to see. No thanks, I will not partake....I hope that's OK by you.

The offer for a pint and a natter stands though.

by liar Thu Sep 07, 2006 16:56

if you want to know about assassination, just ask the Syrians
They have been blowing away leaders and diplomats for years

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=34

wow thats a long long list there ehhh

by liar Thu Sep 07, 2006 17:05

I almost forgot Iran!!!

by pat c Thu Sep 07, 2006 17:27

Michael. There are two sides to a fence.

In Iran you either support the dictatorship or you dont. If you start saying that the resistance is incipient and is liable to be bought off by the CIA then you are plumping for the Mullahs side of the fence. To compare the Iranian Resistance to the Taliban and Osama is too bizarre to even comment on.

I choose the side of the fence with the resistance. I think you alraedy know about the Third Camp but heres the link also the link for the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

I am not calling for his assassination, I'm not saying its even a good idea. But hes certainly a legitimate target, more legitimate than an ordinary soldier. but no progressive person should shed a tear if the monster was sent to hell.

But anyway I dont think the Iranian Resistance will be taking Politico-Military advice from me or from the IAWM.

Always happy to natter but if you raise issues here then you are going to have to discuss them here.

http://www.thirdcamp.com/indexe.php

http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

by Feedback Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:04

Approx 80 people gathered.

AUDIENCE MAKE UP
80% were male (what does this say about women in Ireland and the war, activism, disengagement in left libertarian politics?).
Good % of youth at meeting.
WSM, SWP, IAWM, IRSP,, RAR, ISN, SF, AY, YL, CW and others if someone can add to the list.
irish, French, American, Arab, Scouser, Polish, and others etc
No sign of church people, NGO's, Greens

SPPECHES

-Ciaron O'Reilly background on CW, Ploughshares, Gulf War 1, lead up to action, where from here, building a movement culture of nonviolent resistance and solidarity
-Deirdre Clancy the war, anti-war movement, Ploughshares trial, Israel attack on Lebanon, Irish Govts complicity, anti-War ireland
-Harry Browne - tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience, Shannon Airport as bottleneck chok point for U.S. forces getting to Iraq

AUDIENCE
engaged, lots of questions and statements, most people left with the feeling of an evening well spent, good numbers gathered at pub for follow up conversations, networking ETC

AWI promoted
Sept 23 march promoted
Oct 28th. Return to Shannon by Ploughshares et al floated
-Support for raytheon 9 and B52 activists on trial in Bristol promoted

by me Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:56

Good to hear people arguing for a mix of mass mobilisations and direct action. It was pointed out very clearly that one doesn't rule out the other and that a diversity of tactics should be embraced. Certainly marked AWI out from other groups. Good rap after the speakers. A breath of fresh air, I thought. A step fwd.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 08, 2006 14:57

Dear PatC

'Incipient' in my dictionary means basic, embryonic, initial, nascent, and starting.
As for the resistance, or parts of it, or added bits to it, being open to manipulation - I am not, unfortunately, a prophet or a soothsayer; I just study history and keep me eyes + ears open.

As for the fence and its sides - I really think we are on the same side of that particular edifice.

by pat c Fri Sep 08, 2006 15:43

The Iranian Resistance has been around for a long time, as have you. The last time the Resistance assassinated an Iranian Presisent you were in RS. If I remember correctly RS did not condemn this action nor did they feel that the Resistance were open to being suborned by the US.

Michael, the SWP and their lackeys are already smearing the Iranian Kurds, I hope you will maintain your independent position and not join in with the attacks on the Iranian Resistance. I dont claim to be a prophet either but I think it rather unlikely that the WPI will turn to Imperialism. If you have any concrete evidence to suggest that elements of the Iranian Resistance are aligning themselves with US Imperialism then please produce it. (Opinion pieces in SW do not count as evidence.) Otherwise you might as well suggest that the Resistance are going to join up with Darth Vader.

http://www.thirdcamp.com/indexe.php

http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:09

Hi,

You're absolutely right - Iranians have been fighting their tyrants for a long time. Both the Fedayeen and the Mujaheeden were courageous [and large] organisations fighting against the Shah...and the Islamic guard took the benefits of that struggle exacerbated by a number of serious errors....of the type the enemy of my enemy is my friend type. I can't say I remember whether you came to meetings we had organised with both here in Dublin - when was it - a hundred years ago?
However, lots of bubbling water has gone under the bridges since...in Iran as much as here. I have no evidence and I am not going to put myself into a position of bringing hard judgements on Iranians fighting the mullahs, in variety of ways, today. I said and I repeat that I, and many of us in the IAWM, support the opposition, in all its forms, and sincerely hope they are successful.
In relation to the SWP, the more I follow the activities of their members, in the IAWM and the PbF in particular over the last year, the more distance I put between me and their politics. I respect a good number of individuals in there though - especially those of the older guard. So don't worry - I don't share their attitude to Iran, to name one item, but I hold my ground on some issues. And I do appreciate your 'concern' and your sound historical judgement.

Fraternally

by pat c Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:20

Not quite 100 years ago. I'm not sure if I attended one of your meetings or SFs with Iranian speakers. The Peoples Mujahadeen were fairly active in Dublin on the H blocks issue in 1980 - 81. They produced their own leaflets in both English and Farsi. I wonder if anyone still has copies of them? Due to their personal circumstances - being in Ireland as students or asylum seekers they were limited in the sort of actions they could involve themselves in.

by Don't worry be happy Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:36

They get the best of us all to that point in the end Michael
[In relation to the SWP, the more I follow the activities of their members, in the IAWM and the PbF in particular over the last year, the more distance I put between me and their politics]