''Bringing Protests at Shannon to a New Level''

by Eoin Dubsky Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:15

Great to see this feature, linking to all the info you could want to GET READY for Dec 6th!! ;-)

See you there!!

by Anon Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:18

Hey look at these photos from today's protests in London... It's Caoimhe!

by the black hand Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:52

This demo is hardly bringing the protests at Shannon to a new level. Much more direct actions than a sit down blockade have happened before - such as invading the runway, occupying the terminal, smashing the planes, etc. But it is encouraging to see a big group like the IAWM decide (two years after the first major demo in Shannon as far as I can recall) that they are going to support different and more radical tactics.

The Grassroots Gathering people are organising a bus down to Shannon on the Saturday from Dublin. Its only a tenner...

by Josef Thu Nov 20, 2003 14:25

They dont want to upset their Airport Police friends. Lord Haugh Haugh will no doubt be there to take the details of anyone who raises their voice at a worker in uniform.

by . Thu Nov 20, 2003 14:43

thank god you brought us up to date on the latest thinking of the SP on direct action tactics. I was a bit worried by that stuff I was reading about their members in jail for blocking bin lorrys.:)

by Joe Thu Nov 20, 2003 15:10

Also worth noting that the SWP arguments against the bin tax blockades were more or less identical to some of the SP arguments against direct action at Shannon. eg

"only workers action can win"

"its premature to take action"

"taking action will alienate the workers"

"your substituting yourself for the working class"

"we have to build the movement through marches etc first"

Mind you I don't think anyone in the SWP said

"the army will shoot you"

or

"where are your medical teams"

So from the bin tax and anti-war stuff combined we shall award

Consistency
SWP 100%
Anarchists 100%
SP 0%

Taking action
SWP 0%
Anarchists 100%
SP 50%

by something true Thu Nov 20, 2003 15:55

The SWP heads on the IAWM sterring committee originally opposed the blockade.

there is a different team within the IAWM promoting this action.

by Trefoil Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:06

I don't think it's worth turning up
by Trefoil Thursday, Nov 20 2003, 5:54am
[Published on other newswire - now condensed]

They've completely ignored everything we've done so far. Bush won't change his mind and latest olls show his support in the US is still around 51%. It's bound to rise since he announced an exit date from Iraq.

What's done is done now, and we cannot do anything to bring back all those innocent lives. Let's regroup, hold a series of meetings up and down the country to get ideas from people on how to oppose the American War Machine in the long term. I think we've missed our chance on this one.

Standing in the road outside Shannon doesn't work, that much is clear. We need to reach out to the Irish people and get them involved.

How about planning a roadshow?

by Alan Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:06

[Published on other newswire - now condensed]

by Alan Thursday, Nov 20 2003, 10:41am


I fully agree with the blockade of Shannon but I believe that advertising the event on Indymedia and on posters in this manner will only alert the authorities to our intentions. Unless we have a massive crowd that can stretch the garda / security operation we won't get near the airport. That means thousands, not hundreds of protesters.

There is of course a difficulty here. If you advertise an ordinary demo and it turns out to be 'civil disobedience' you have a problem with people who're not up for that and believe they're being duped. If you advertise civil disobedience then the cops will prepare for that. The riot shields and batons are already being polished....

by Dominic Carroll Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:08 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

[Published on other newswire - now condensed]

by Dominic Carroll - clonakiltyagainstthewar@eircom.net Thursday, Nov 20 2003, 12:19pm


Alan – it’s just not possible to organise a blockade on the QT. Should we have passed word of the blockade around by word of mouth (no posters, leaflets, internet, media publicity, public meetings, bus arrangements, etc. etc.) and then have thousands of people make their way to Shannon without anyone being the wiser?

As to riot shields and batons “already being polished”, I think you’re being somewhat provocative. We all resent the guards policing demos but there’s no point blowing things out of perspective. On March 1st, the guards were actually restrained. In fact, though there have been arrests at many anti-war demos and the occasional “ruckus”, nothing outrageous has happened. The sheer scale of anti-war feeling in this country has itself put restraints on the state when dealing with protests. Injuries have been rare and minor (the most serious police activity occurred in Belfast the day after the Hillsborough protest).

The true picture is as follows: a small number of people have been inconvenienced by ridiculous court appearances and were obliged to pay fines and stay away from Shannon; a handful of people have had to endure a few weeks in prison on bail; Fintan Lane is about to do two months in prison for refusing to pay a fine for protesting at Shannon; a small number are facing serious charges (Mary Kelly, CW5). I hope I haven’t overlooked anything.

Without wishing to detract from the impact these things have had on the individuals concerned, I feel it fair to say that the anti-war movement in Ireland has got off light (check out the situation in Egypt if you want to know how bad it could have got).

So let’s get down to Shannon on December 6th. Let’s keep it non-violent. Let’s not blow it out of proportion.

by Mark Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:42

I am very much behind left-wing politics in general, but what I say below is not just my hesitations but probably the thoughts of the majority of people in Ireland who now favor the use of Shannon as a military stopover.

The U.S. did not invade and kill people in any normal country.

This was a country ruled by one of the most brutal dictators of the current generation under whom countless thousands were brutally murdered, tortured and suffered.

Polls and personal opinions from Iraqi's show mixed feelings on the American invasions - some for, some against.

I have yet to see a totally convincing argument why the removal of this brutal dictator was not worth it. Surely despite the horror that had to be gone through, does Iraq now not have some chance of a half-decent future without the reign of that tyrant.

If the Americans had an airbase in Ireland in 1941 how would people feel about it? Many people also lost their lives during World War II.

This country obviously remains unconvinced about your arguments.

As a supporter of left wing politics - this really is more advice than anything. I think you have got to somehow convince the public more why what is being carried out with Ireland’s support is such an atrocity (after you weigh up all the pro’s and con’s).

by Joe Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:28

"I have yet to see a totally convincing argument why the removal of this brutal dictator was not worth it."

Why do you want to see such an argument. It's rather obvious that the removal of the 'brutal dictator' in isolation from everything that surrounded it was a good thing. It's also obvious that the removal only happened because those who once supported him and supplied him with weapons decided he was no longer their mate

Does this matter? Yes and here is why.

The vast bulk of the mass graves discovered date back to late 1991, the period after the last Gulf War. Back then todays invaders decided that it was better to allow Saddam to execute tens or hundreds of thousands of people then risk 'instability'.

They didn't just stand back and allow this to happen they facilitated it. The anti-Saddam uprising that ended the 1991 war was militarly capable of defeating the Iraqi army units loyal to Saddam on the ground. And they were in the process of doing so without US intervention.

However the US and Britain announced to Saddam that while he was not allowed to fly his jet aircraft (fixed wing) out of central Iraq he was quite welcome to fly helicopters against the insurgents. They made this distinction because the US recognised that without those helicopters the anti-Saddam insurgents would win and what followed them might either be a left-nationalist or islamist regime. The helicopters flew, the insurgency was defeated and in the months that followed the mass graves that are now 'found' for the TV cameras were filled.

In other words the occupiers have already been faced with a choice between a brutal dictator and allowing Iraqis to choose their own destiny. They choose the brutal dictator and as a result the graves were filled.

Right now it is not clear what the future for Iraq will be. We do know that the US is imposing an unelected council of yes men as an alternative to a "left-nationalist or islamist regime". We do know that not only have they kept many of Saddams repressive laws they have added to them, oganising a strike for instance is now punishable by being arrested as a POW and maybe shipped off to Guatanomo bay.

We do know that in order to create 'stability' they have already taken on the old police force and many former Ba'athists. We do know that they have recognisd old ba'athist yellow unions over (left influenced) independant ones. We do know that they have started the demolition of houses of the families they suspect to have members in the reistance. We do know they have imprisoned thousands without trial.

If tomorrow the resistance grows and the cost is too high in terms of US troop losses will they once more put Saddam back into power. They have done this once before, back in 1991.

Probably not, that would be a little too obvious. But it is quite probable that some other strong man will be selected for this role, maybe even one of Saddams old entourage who at least know 'how to get the job done'.

Saddam is gone but the Iraqi people do not have freedom even in some weak sense of the word. The people who helped put Saddam into power are now engaged with choosing who will succeed him. That process (aka the Occupation) must be opposed if the Iraqi people are to have any say in choosing their own future.

by Eoin Dubsky Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:31

Mark, firstly I'm sure you'll agree that government policy doesn't become right automatically the moment 51% of the population support it. The majority of Americans -- and in some states way over 70% -- appear to support the death penalty for example.

You say that The U.S. did not "invade and kill people in any normal country" and describe what their former Iraqi strongman did between the time he was brought to power with the assistance of the CIA, to the time that he was let escape like Osama Bin Laden (another "former" U.S. asset). Whether the U.S. invaded a country which you call normal or abnormal is besides the point. They have killed countless people in Iraq -- that's the point!

by ec Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:02

A majority of Irish citizens are in favour of the US abandoning their occupation of Iraq asap. 55 % vs 45% is my recollection as its been a couple of days since I read about it. Far more women than men favour this.

Funny how they don't ask about shannon in polls recently. IE since the 'war'.

by Mark Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:36

Good arguments indeed people. Thank you.

But its not me that needs convincing. I want to believe.

Its "Joe" public out there that needs convincing. Go convince them!

Of course this is indeed a very devisive issue and though the last poll taken a few months ago (which unfortunately I have lost my copy of) reported that a majority of Irish people now support the Shannon stopover - before the war polls showed that they did not:-

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/0215/3514993743HM1POLL1.html

"Voters disapprove of the use of Shannon Airport by the US military and will continue to do so with or without a new UN resolution backing a war on Iraq, an Irish Times/MRBI opinion poll shows.

Some 54 per cent disapprove of the current policy of allowing planes land at Shannon. Some 36 per cent approve, with 10 per cent having no opinion."

But even then it was close.

It would be interesting to see the results of another poll now, considering the mayhem and death that the country continues to experience.

by J26 Fri Nov 21, 2003 02:02 july26 at eircom dot net

Informing "Joe Public" probably won't make much of a difference.

Sad to say, but it is likely that a majority of people in Ireland would support the use of Shannon at the moment. The polls done lately all seem to point to a seriously selfish society (70% believe "globalisation" will be good for them(Eurobarometer), a majority supported the war after the event etc.).
In fact the country has shades of Yeats "September 1913" about it. We don't really seem to give a crap about anyone anymore. We don't even seem to care about the injustices within our own society. We have the second highest rate of child poverty in the "developed world" (after the US of course). Our treatment of minorities is appalling, be they travellers, asylum seekers or whatever. Why should a people don't seem to care about local problems really care about "towel heads" (my bosses words, not mine) being killed against international law? What's in it for them?

I know that I am making sweeping generalisations - there are many decent people out there - the trouble is that I see so few of them in my normal day. I would love to see a huge turnout at Shannon, and I think there will be a decent number of people, but make no mistake - we will be a fringe event to many in this country.

Yeats was able to write "Easter 1916" as a retraction of "September 1913". I hope we have occasion to do similar. For the moment it looks like we may have to just keep banging our heads against a brick wall.



September 1913
William Butler Yeats

WHAT need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone;
For men were born to pray and save:
Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.

Yet they were of a different kind
The names that stilled your childish play,
They have gone about the world like wind,
But little time had they to pray
For whom the hangman’s rope was spun,
And what, God help us, could they save:
Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.

Was it for this the wild geese spread
The grey wing upon every tide;
For this that all that blood was shed,
For this Edward Fitzgerald died,
And Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone,
All that delirium of the brave;
Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.

Yet could we turn the years again,
And call those exiles as they were,
In all their loneliness and pain
You’d cry ‘Some woman’s yellow hair
Has maddened every mother’s son’:
They weighed so lightly what they gave,
But let them be, they’re dead and gone,
They’re with O’Leary in the grave.

Just to finish off with a quote from another Irishman - George Bernard Shaw
"The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity."
If we could teach this simple lesson to everyone then we would be halfway to making real progress.

by Joe Bloggs Fri Nov 21, 2003 02:25

Yeah, blah, blah, I've read Yeats and Shaw. Snore! Well, Shaw was a big fan of Stalin and Yeats was a fucking blueshirt. So much for them.

Wise up. Support the Shannon blockade and let's run ze US military outta Ireland!!

by A message to Mark Fri Nov 21, 2003 09:01

Don't judge these people by what they say but by what they do.

They oppose everything the US does for their own narrow political reasons, morality doesn't come into it.

They're telling you that a good reason to oppose the US invasion of Iraq is because they supplied him with weapons during the Cold War in the Iran/Iraq conflict.

** Note that no weapons have been supplied to Iraq since 1988.

Now, in 2003, they were using this a valid reason to oppose the removal of this brutal genocidal tyrant. Does that strile you as logical? As a good reason??

By their actions, they marched on Irish streeta shouting that they wanted to keep Saddam Hussein in power,

Do you really want to trust these people?

by Insider Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:14

The 16-person steering committee elected at the AGM (attended by a mere45 people) included a number of 'new' people, such as Fintan Lane, Mick
O'Sullivan, Tim Hourigan and Harry Browne, all of them intent on improving matters.

Fintan proposed the blockade ­ Kieran Allen and his 3 SWP acolytes nearly had a fit, though RBB held his tongue a bit as at that stage he was waiting to be re-elected as Chairperson (the SP member turned up)late but added his opposition).

A sub-committee was established and set to work. Eoin Rice was co-opted onto the sub-committee, as was Dominic Carroll and a couple of others.
They scouted Shannon, produced a poster and leaflet, cranked up the publicity machine and began contacting people.

At the subsequent steering committee meeting, Allen et al announced that, since the steering committee had time on its hands (!), they'd
take over the organising for the event, despite still being vehemently opposed to it! When they'd worn themselves out with criticism of the
work already undertaken,they drew up a speakers' list: Michael D.,Patricia McKenna, SWP ­ "oh, alright Michael, one for the Socialist
Party ­ha ha." I kid you not. Fintan et al lost every vote (only 12 attended: 4 SWP, 1 SP, 1 potential SWP, 2 doormats (?) result: 7-5).

Word got out about the new turn, and raised concerns about SWP sabotage.

However, the DA people working within the IAWM are of the opinion that the ball is already rolling and they won't be able to muck it up too
much (though you can NEVER underestimate the SWP's capacity for destruction ­ and the SP are natural allies in this scenario; the SP guy
(Michael O'Brien, I think) was given responsibility for stewards). But with so many anti-war activists beyond the IAWM/SWP gearing up for the blockade, I think the SWP's control on the day will be minimal (and possibly even counter-productive from their own point of view).

by Not insider - iawm member Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:00

Is evidently a member of the steering committee and was at the last meeting. However they musn't have been at the meeting previous to that because they say Michael O'Brien from the SP turned up late and opposed the blocade when in fact he wasn't at that meeting at all. He was speaking at the ISF while the steering committee was taking place!

by Anti War Activist Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:06

Any truth in the rumour that RBB says he can't make it to Shannon because he forgot about the blockade and is committed to an anti-bin tax forum instead.

If it is true the steering committee should have a vote of no confidence in his chairmanship at their next meeting.

by Curious Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:09

Is Michael O'Brien Chief Steward and is he going to set Kevins Puppies on anyone who does not obey orders. Do the SP oppose the blockade of Shannon on this occasion?

by David Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:25

Apparently the electioneering element of the steering committee have used their majority to impose an observer ban at steering committee meetings to dissolve any illusion of democratic accountability within OUR movement.

What will they do if concerned individuals turn up at the steering committee meeting on Saturday and demand the right to be silent observers in support of the activists who are trying to actually put an end to irelands involvement in the war.

by Belcher Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:27

SWP and SP thugs will be outside the meeting room and will only let committee members in.

by Insider Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:32

with the police, sorry the workers in uniform, in order to ensure that there are no incidents during the protest.

by Gerry O Donoghue - KildareAnti -War Movement Fri Nov 21, 2003 15:41 gerryod1 at esatclear dot ie Curragh 0872642887

Edward Horgan will speak @ Parish Centre NewBridge,Kildare on Tuesday Nov 25@8.00pm

by a good time Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:06

this is a good feature - but the comments are not really talking about the issue - tactics and strategy.

obviously we cannot speak much of this publically but we should be chatting about this.

now that the SWP has bin taxes to work on, how should things be done differently this time at Shannon?

by Curious Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:16

If Michael O'Brien is Chief Steward then there could be big problems cos hes as arrogant as any of the SWP biggies. Hes well known as a cop lover, just see his article in the Voice after Evian. He also started up the scare story about the need for Doctors at the March 1 Demo at Shannon.

With him as leader the stewards will definitely be the first cop line.

by J26 Fri Nov 21, 2003 19:34

You TOOL!!! I'm on your side. I will be at the blockade on the 6th. Did you bother your arse reading all of my post, or did you just decide to dismiss it? I'm saying we should try, but we're up against it to try and turn this country away from the selfish path it has chosen. This is the freaking problem with the left in Ireland - it's so bloody reactionary and dismissive of other opinions, and can't understand that anyone but Americans can disagree with them (except people from any other left group - e.g. anarchists v Marxists or anyone v SWP).

Here's some news for you - we are in a minority. That does not make us wrong. That does not mean we stop trying. I'm just trying to be realistic. I'm all for doing whatever is necessary to swing opinion but that sort of dismissive cock will not win you any friends.

I want to change society for the better.
Insulting your allies does not make the job any easier.

There is a common enemy - that's the indifference to the human misery created by this consumer society. If we can beat that then we have millions of allies rather than just the few "usual suspects".

The left in Ireland needs to include people, not push them away, or it is condemned to obscurity.

by Lone Gunman Sun Nov 23, 2003 18:06

Brendan Behan once quipped that the first point on any Irish organization agenda was the split.
Going by the comments,bitching and backbiting that goes on here between the SWP and the IAWM,and others I really am amazed that you get anything organized.Until you folk UNITE on somthing common in your agendas,you will never get anywhere with a professional movement. You must have somthing in common?Or is it a case of everyone wanting to be the cheifs and not the injuns?You could see it in the last Shannon demo.Officals,provisionals,and radicals,a split front that was expending its forces more on each other than on its enemy.
As for gaining support of the man in the street.Ask yourselves this. Realistically without the hyperbole and propaganda does it affect him?No not really.It doesnt cut his wages ,threaten him,take away his car,boob tube[TV],food or family.Until you start making life difficult or miserable for the man in the street in any of those sectors.He will consider you as a amusement at best or a terrorist at worst.To wit;Until the American presence in Shannon or Iraq or AlQuieda becomes a direct threat to the man in the street.No one will give a toss. Push the campain too far and the US coroprations might pull out .They emply plenty of us here,and they can up and out as well.That effects plenty of us and makes us more hostile to you.Sure,plenty of you said that this would not happen.why then was SF in shannon told by its electorate to rein it in abit re Shannon stopover at their Ard fheis in Dromoland castle earlier this year?

Spectaulars; well they will have to be spectular.
"symbolic"gestures of digging and planting spuds ,attempting to break up re enforced concrete runways with a hammer or vandalising an aircraft isnt going to cut it folks!Maybe putting an RPG into one about to take off might get the attention of everyone.Especially the US as you would then REALLY see Shannon become a genuine military base.And of course this would go against the peaceful nature of the protest.

So to conclude my suggestions are;
Get your shit together,decide who is going to be a cheif and who is an indian...ooopps ..Native American underling...in PC speak.
Come up with somthing really spectular that will get everyones attention for more than two days,and that will really affect the sheeple,er man in the street out there. I really think you have gone as far as is possible with non violent direct action,your next step is violent direct action which wont be tolerated by the powers that be. Its going to be a doozy to keep this one moving.
Jim connolly said it well.the flame of republican socialism is drowned out in the bog of irish indifference.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 15:27

Extremly unfair to Michael O'Brien on a number of counts.

1) The article re Evian that he wrote commented that at the main mass demo in Geneva the cops kept a low profile and instead concentrated on clashes with the black bloc elsewhere. It's a myth that any "praise" was being attributed to the cops.

2) The so called scaremongering re 1 March is a distortion of events. Michael asked Chekov Feeney about provisions GNAW made for their attempt to scale the fence in a PRIVATE e-mail which was circulated by Chekov on a GNAW mailing list and subsequently found its way onto Indymedia. This sequence of events has since been peddled by people like Curious & Magneto as Michael scaremongering.

3) Calling Michael O'Brien a cop lover is completly laughable given the amount of clashes verbal and physical he has had with them going right back to the time of the celbrated scrap he had with a leading member of Youth Defence in UCD which ended in him being hauled off to Donnybrook to him being physically being carried off more recent anti war and anti bin tax blocades.

4) In terms of being "arrogant" I wonder if you know him personnally at all Curious because other political opponents while not liking his politics would find him someone who least fits that description among the SP leadership.

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 15:38

The SP seem to think if they keep on lieing the truth will never catch up with them. But in this case it has.

MO'B spread scare stories about the need for medical back up at Shannon this along with Lord Haugh Haughs ravings about the Gardai firing into the crowd was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the GNAW actions.

MO'B may have fought Youth Defence in the past but his defence of the Cops at Evian show his degeneration. He praised the restraint of the cops at Evian and failed to mention the cops attack on peaceful demonstrators at the bridge. He also took part in the libelling of the Black Bloc.

Chief Inspector Michael O'Brien is going to get a wake up call if he thinks hes going to push genuine actists around at Shannon on this occasion.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 15:45

A rational reply has been given to each of your allegations but rather than take up the explanations offered you simply emphatically restate your unfounded accusations.

Your last point is scurrilous, basically implying that Michael has a record of "pushing" around fellow activists. Where has this happened? Where has any IAWM steward pushed around an activist?

Don't you realise that if you have real differences with the IAWM or SP or even Michael O'Brien as an individual then you do yourself a complete diservice by making such shrill and outlandish accusations.

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 15:52

C'mon MOB didnt mention the attack on peaceful demonstrators on the bridge.This is quite astonishing, he was just out to run down the Black Bloc. Its hilarious the way the SP think its ok for them to accuse the BB of being infiltrated by cops but they get outraged when a SPer is called a cop lover.

Anyone who was involed in the Anti War Movements know how MO'B strutted around as a steward barking orders. His sabotage of Shannon cannot be denied, its on the record; you are trying to put a spin on it.

SP lies dont wash here.

by sean - none Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:04

Having first aid back up at any anti capitalist demonstration in Europe is pretty normal. Whats wrong with it? Its simple common sense, if there may be trouble protesters should be prepared.

by mickey - observer Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:11

whatever you think of the spers, the are democratic in one sense. When they opposed the direct action in shannon and the IAWM didn't plan it they were disciplined. And when a majority of the IAWM has called for direct action they although opposing it are supporting it now. There is an advertisment for it on their website. And they are probably one of the best organisations for organising co-ordinated direct action as they proved in the first week of the bin charges. You may not like them but they are easily the best organised and disciplined political group on the hard left.

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:11

Its the first time it was ever suggested here, maybe its a good idea. But how come the SP never suggested it before? It was brought up by the SP on that occasion to sabotage the demonstration. Remember they were also spreading scare stories that the cops might fire into an unarmed crowd.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:11

Really believe Michael is a cop lover at all then judging by your last statement but rather it's a fit of pique at the black bloc being critized. You also admit now that Michae's artilce was refering to the mass demo in Geneva. His article does allude to the clashes that took place outside of the particular demo he was on. Bear in mind the article is an eyewitness account. MO'B isn't blind to police brutality, he has been at the receiving end of it as I alluded to earlier and also saw it first hand at Genoa where he also gave an eyewitness account in a public meeting in Dublin.

Your personal hatred for Michael O'Brien is pathalogical. Do you oppose the stewarding of demos as a matter of principle perhaps??

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:13

Mickey describes himself as an observor, could this be the same Mickey who has been posting as an SP member?

by mickey - nope Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:16

mickeys a fairly common name on this little island of ours. I'm not a socialist party member but I will be the first to admit I was pleasently suprised by their work on the bin charges. I knew them from their anti war position which was against dircet action. Which was a very bad position. Now I think after a taste of it the younger members like it. And as I said they organised it very well.

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:19

Why cant you deal with the incident on the bridge? Are you saying M'OB didnt know about it?!!!! C'mon , how is it ok for the SP to say that the Black Bloc are infiltrated by cops but not ok to call M'OB a coplover?

You are trying to divert attention from the disgraceful record of the SP/CWI when it comes to cops. Be it in the North, during the Poll Tax Riots at Shannon or in Evian, when the SP/CWI see a confrontation with the cops they seem to be unsure of which side they should be on.

Must be a real cult of the personality centred arounf O'Brien if you are upset by such criticisms of him. His actions and writings justify the description coplover.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:25

To still insist on calling Michael a cop lover despite everything that has been said is so patently ridiculous that you must be a troll.

by Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 16:40

You havent dealt with any of the issues raised. People can see that for themselves. All they have to do is scroll back up the thread. The SP are not able to apply Stalins Airbrush on Indymedia. I'm sure it would be the first to be closed down if you Leninists ever seized power.

by Chekov Mon Nov 24, 2003 17:36

"Michael asked Chekov Feeney about provisions GNAW made for their attempt to scale the fence in a PRIVATE e-mail which was circulated by Chekov on a GNAW mailing list and subsequently found its way onto Indymedia."

The correspondance was between myself, appointed by GNAW to liase with the IAWM and Michael, appointed by the IAWM to liase with GNAW. How anybody can confuse this with a PRIVATE email is beyond me. A private email would surely have to involve a personal contact between people acting in an individual capacity. All the correspondance that I sent and received in that capacity was shared with GNAW as I made every effort to operate in an open and accountable manner. It's funny but some people seem to think that trasparency and honesty are a sneaky trick!

Anyway, I'm really not interested in digging up the skeletons of March 1st, anybody who was active at the time will probably remember it for ever, and anybody who wants to relive the whole sordid affair can trawl through the archives here.

But I am curious as to what the SP's attitude is towards December 6th. Personally, I'd expect them to continue shadowing the SWP line and to act, in practice, to undermine attempts at any effective action at Shannon. I base this on the observation that there are very few votes to be won in their target market by being seen to take a stand against the US military use of Shannon. Sure, maybe I'm too cynical, but there's only one thing that's going to convince me that I'm wrong.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 17:50

It's understandable that you would circulate correspondance with the GNAW network but the insinuation from Curious was one of Michael going public with his concerns which wasn't the case.

If GNAW members felt that Michael was unduly concerned with the prospect of Garda violence (hardly the trait of a coplover by the way) it was a mistake for one of them to go public with Michael's e-mail.

by ec - Indymedia Ireland Mon Nov 24, 2003 17:56

I can see thru you and you are trolling . . .

by Hebe Mon Nov 24, 2003 17:59

It was a communication between IAWM and GNAW. GNAW operates on the basis on of openess and transparency. You seem to come from a background where secrecy is the norm and information is hidden from ordinary members.

At the time the SP were denying that they had spread scare stories about the need to have medics present at the Shannon Demo. Thats why Michael O Briens letter was published on Indymedia.

by Curious about Curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 18:03

Michael's e-mail wouldn't have constituted evidence of IAWM scaremongering. His e-mail would hardly have caused concern among the GNAW membership however somebody in GNAW published the e-mail and then went on to accuse the SP of scaremongering! Somewhat unfair.

by Hebe Mon Nov 24, 2003 18:11

If it was just that in isolation then you might have a point. But there was a full scale assault on the proposed direct action in both the regular press and in Indymedia by SP and SWP members. Another SP member, Domnic Haugh, suggested that the guards could shoot at the activists if there was an attempt at Direct Action.

Anyway as Chekov said people can go back through the archive to see what was said at the time. You will really only discredit both the SP and IAWM if you try to pretend that certain things were not written on Indymedia.

by Curious about curious Mon Nov 24, 2003 18:22

Recall Dominic's arguements. If he said Guards could shoot at protesters beforehand it obviously seems ridiculous in hindsight. However such a statement is hardly the work of a coplover to use Curious's phraseology.

However if a sucessful breach of the fence did take place and there was a concerted effort made by demonstraters to occupy the runway and "disable" some warplanes you couldn't have ruled out the guards going in heavy and in that sense it was a case of the IAWM taking GNAW intentions seriously.

It's all academic now though now the the IAWM steering committee has voted for a blockade and then appointed Michael as chief steward he is bound to go with that on the day. Knowing how the SP operate Michael is hardly at odds with his comrades.

by Steelie Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:13

"now the the IAWM steering committee has voted for a blockade and then appointed Michael as chief steward"

Does anybody really need a 'chief' steward? Maybe I can see the point in having stewards, but why have one with more authority than the rest? Surely they should at least be able to do the job without a little Lenin looking over their shoulder.

It should be remembered that the SP and SWP both voted against the blockade and subsequently have tried to turn it from a direct action into a standard march-n-speeches affair. Crucial to this is the fact that they used their majority on the steering committee to give themselves the stewarding job (for a protest that they oppose and consider 'idiotic' - a bit like getting the guards to steward!). Most genuine activists are assuming that the stewards will be attempting to ensure that there is no serious attempt to disrupt Shannon airport and are planning accordingly.

by SP watcher Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:15

That the SP voted against the blocade. Because an earler posting say they weren't at the meeting that voted on it?

by David Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:51

Why don't they park it across one of the key roads leading up to the airport.

Then everybody's happy.

Simple solution for a compromise

by Colm Stephens - Irish Anti-War Movement Mon Dec 01, 2003 21:18 info at irishantiwar dot org

[Edited to remove whitespace by R Isible] Monday, December 1, 2003
Irish Anti-War Movement Press Statement
Protesters warn of airport disruption

Passengers planning to use Shannon Airport next Saturday [Dec 6] should arrive early or make different travel arrangements, the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) said today. The IAWM plans to disrupt access to the airport with a non-violent protest blockade beginning after 2pm, when protesters from across the country will gather in Shannon town.

“It gives us no pleasure to inconvenience ordinary air-travellers and workers,” Richard Boyd Barrett, IAWM chairperson, said. “But the Government has ensured there is no such thing as ‘business as usual’ at the airport by allowing it to be used as a military base, in support of brutal wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Tens of thousands of US troops have passed through Shannon since President Bush said the Iraq war was over at the beginning of May – 10,000 in September alone. Some 10,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation.

Mr. Boyd Barrett commented that the full-scale battle between Iraqi resistance and the deaths of over 60 people over the weekend in Iraq makes a mockery of Bush’s claim that the war is over and added that the anti-war movements around the world and in Ireland had always said that the Iraqis would never welcome the invaders as liberators. He added, “Hundreds of the American soldiers who have stopped off at Shannon have gone on to give their lives or limbs in the cause of making Iraq safe for the oil men who run the Bush Administration, and for their other corporate cronies.”

After months of obfuscation from the Government about what weapons and troops were using Shannon, it emerged prior to the invasion of Iraq that the US had virtual carte blanche to use the airport as it saw fit. The High Court said in April that this military Shannon stopover could not be seen as compatible with ‘neutrality’ in international law, though the court declared itself powerless to overrule the Government’s decision. PRO of IAWM Dr Fintan Lane last week began a 60-day jail sentence for his part in a non-violent protest at Shannon last year.

On Saturday, protesters will use people-power to combat this corrupt Government policy. The IAWM said the peaceful blockade will be conducted according to principles of non-violent civil disobedience. It will be a mass sit-down protest and will not seek confrontation with the authorities, who have employed heavy-handed tactics in the past to attack peaceful anti-war protesters.
ends

For further information contact Richard Boyd Barrett 087 632 9511 or
Harry Browne 087 764 8065

by pc Tue Dec 02, 2003 18:18

of innate before its good site have they done stuff in dublin

by Andy Newby Thu Dec 04, 2003 14:27

Typical that I came looking for what was going on on Saturday, or something about Fintan being sent to jail, or something about the 'neutral Irish' police being used to enforce US foreign policy... but no, just different factions of the left bitching at each other. You'd want to catch yerselves on sharpish.