Anti-War March, Dublin 18th of March [Archive]

jebus

12/03/2006, 1:34 PM

http://irishantiwar.org/images/mid_section_content/poster.jpg

I was at a meeting for this during the week to see what it was all about, and whether it was worth taking photos of at it, and I have to say coming away from the meeting I have the same opinion of the anti-war movement as I've always had, they're basically an anti-american group.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Britain, Italy etc. have a part to play in the Iraq war? Sadly they were never discussed during this meeting, it was all 'Bush said this, American's think that, they'll kill us ALL!!'. Now I realise that Bush, America are at fault for a lot of this, but holding public meetings to condemn America's prejudice against Muslims/Palestinians/whoever, whilst venting their own prejudices against Americans is a bit hypocritical in my opinion. Also I find it funny that a anti-war movement is offically supported by Sinn Fein and a Palestinian solidarity group.

Anyway the march starts in parnell st. and moves off from there. I'm thinking of heading up to get some shots (although I'm sure they won't be as interesting as the last time I attended a march in Dublin), is there anyone else looking at this?

Conor H

12/03/2006, 2:02 PM

Roverstillidie

12/03/2006, 3:13 PM

Also I find it funny that a anti-war movement is offically supported a Palestinian solidarity group.

why?

why would you bother publicising a march you claim to disagree with?:confused:

dahamsta

12/03/2006, 3:17 PM

Thought the same meself. "The sound of his own voice" springs to mind, albeit not entirely accurately.

dcfcsteve

12/03/2006, 3:58 PM

This march is a disgrace. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. I hear they're planning to march past the hallowed ground of the GPO - epi-centre of our own famous war against the English oppressors in 1916. Having anti-war bigots marching past the key battleground of our own war for freedom is an absolute disgrace - what the feck is the government doing sanctioning things loike this ?? The organisers refused to guarantee that no-one would bring along a picture of John Hume - the scumbag life-long advocate for a peaceful resolution to Ireland's political problems. This has to be stopped.

I'm planning on going up to Parnell Square to protest against their protest. And possibly to set fire to a few BMW's. I'm also in need of some new sports clothing.

I urge any one else who cares about Irerland to join me in facing down these anti-war bigots. Patrick Pearse must be stirring in his grave...

Lim till i die

13/03/2006, 12:14 PM

Very good sarcastic parody of the riots last week there take out the social context of all those "Scumbags" rioting and you almost have a point.

The point jebus makes is a valid one. These anti-war guys are largely upper middle-class guilt ridden pinko types who for all their bluster are far too cowardly to rock the boat. What essentially is an anti-American (but in the politest ways possible) group hiding behind an anti-war banner is pretty laughable and shows them up as the arch-blusterers that they are. Don't get me wrong I'm fiercely anti-American but thats how I would describe myself I don't hide behind this war platform. Where was this huge groundswell of anti-Americanism when they were bombing the $hite out of Serbia???

Also in fairness to jebus, pretty sure hes doing a photography course so he isn't giving any personal publicity or anything to the march :p

Plastic Paddy

13/03/2006, 12:42 PM

These anti-war guys are largely upper middle-class guilt ridden pinko types who for all their bluster are far too cowardly to rock the boat. What essentially is an anti-American (but in the politest ways possible) group hiding behind an anti-war banner is pretty laughable and shows them up as the arch-blusterers that they are.

I think a little clarification is called for here. IMO it's disingenuous to refer to those against the war as anti-American. Surely it would be more accurate to say that they oppose the actions of the American administration, no?

Ya that's all those muppets are!They've nothing better to do than protest about America and Shannon airport etc.Whenever i see any of those crowd protesting on Shop Street i tell them quite simply they're a joke.

And no doubt when they've picked themselves up off the floor from laughing so hard they tell you much the same. :rolleyes:

:ball: PP

Lim till i die

13/03/2006, 12:50 PM

Plastic Paddy

13/03/2006, 1:06 PM

Indeed it would. Well spotted and I happily clarify :o

Good stuff LTID. My point wasn't just aimed at you BTW, as this "anti-American" labelling is symptomatic of something the American administration and their friends in the rightwing media do, albeit far more consciously than you did, to anyone that dare oppose the US foreign policy agenda. And that's plainly wrong.

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=447927&postcount=38

:ball: PP

anto1208

13/03/2006, 1:30 PM

all these marches these days have people nothing better to do i tell you we need a war , draft them all up .:)

i notice the protest last week over bush in shannon was held by about 4 people , there was hundreds at the summer protest look like the protesters dont like the cold !! all bush has to do is travel in the winter !!.

jebus

13/03/2006, 4:12 PM

why?

why would you bother publicising a march you claim to disagree with?:confused:

Because

a) I was bored

b) I thought this was a current affairs discussion board, and again I was bored

c) since I want to get into photography and media at a future time I like hearing peoples opinions on current affairs, such as this one

and

d) again i thought this was a discussion thread, do you need to agree with something before bringing it up? not all of us are on here for arguments, I for one would quite like someone to prove my 'anti-war = anti-US' sentiments wrong, sadly with yourself and dahamsta questioning peoples motives for posting on a public topic in a public forum this may never happen

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 4:18 PM

jebus

13/03/2006, 4:28 PM

The public nature of the forum is neither here not there jebus, and questioning motives isn't exactly against the rules. It struck me as a bizarre, if not self-serving post, and it would seem RTID thought the same.

And aren't you being just a tad over-defensive now?

adam

Aren't you? Check and mate

But nope, don't think I was being over-defensive, I got asked a question I thought was a tad idiotic and I answered it in the fashion I deemed fit

Plastic Paddy

13/03/2006, 4:28 PM

I for one would quite like someone to prove my 'anti-war = anti-US' sentiments wrong

I thought I did that quite clearly above. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my posts.

:ball: PP

Conor H

13/03/2006, 4:29 PM

I think a little clarification is called for here. IMO it's disingenuous to refer to those against the war as anti-American. Surely it would be more accurate to say that they oppose the actions of the American administration, no?
No they're Anti American now.

And no doubt when they've picked themselves up off the floor from laughing so hard they tell you much the same. :rolleyes:
For what reason would i be a joke?They stand on Shop street complaing about the Americans.Would they prefer if we were enemies to the Americans.A bunch of crusty wasters.

jebus

13/03/2006, 4:33 PM

I thought I did that quite clearly above. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my posts.

:ball: PP

Just did and what I have to retort with is this. I wasn't referring to all those who oppose the Iraq war (I'm one of them), I was referring to the anti-war movement, or what my general opinion was of it going into that meeting, and what I still believed coming out of it. I also think that they go beyond opposing the American government, from comments like 'all American's are idiots', and 'they all want another war', I think that the discussion held that night ended up being more about the American people rather than any anti-war discussion. Which is why I asked why they hadn't brought up Tony Blair, or Silvio Berlusconi or anyone else at the meeting.

Plastic Paddy

13/03/2006, 4:43 PM

Just did and what I have to retort with is this. I wasn't referring to all those who oppose the Iraq war (I'm one of them), I was referring to the anti-war movement, or what my general opinion was of it going into that meeting, and what I still believed coming out of it. I also think that they go beyond opposing the American government, from comments like 'all American's are idiots', and 'they all want another war', I think that the discussion held that night ended up being more about the American people rather than any anti-war discussion.

Fair enough. You were there and formed a clear impression; I wasn't and so won't tell you what you saw and heard. In saying that I'd urge you not to tar with the same brush all people at a public meeting and politely suggest that there were a range of views present, some of which weren't expressed. Having been involved a little with the anti-war movement here in London the pitch is somewhat different - a huge coalition of interests with a single aim and whilst the Socialist Workers, various Islamic interest groups and other political and community affiliations try to push their own individual agendas to the fore, the balance ensures that the debate at least is more mature (even if the net effect is the same :( ).

Which is why I asked why they hadn't brought up Tony Blair, or Silvio Berlusconi or anyone else at the meeting.

Did you ask them yourself? What did they say? In London we certainly question the motives of those you mention, but then we have to live with one of them as our Glorious Leader.

:ball: PP

jebus

13/03/2006, 4:49 PM

Fair enough. You were there and formed a clear impression; I wasn't and so won't tell you what you saw and heard. In saying that I'd urge you not to tar with the same brush all people at a public meeting and politely suggest that there were a range of views present, some of which weren't expressed. Having been involved a little with the anti-war movement here in London the pitch is somewhat different - a huge coalition of interests with a single aim and whilst the Socialist Workers, various Islamic interest groups and other political and community affiliations try to push their own individual agendas to the fore, the balance ensures that the debate at least is more mature (even if the net effect is the same :( ).

I think there's the problem with the Irish anti-war movement, its basically a cover up for the Socialist party to push their own leaflets on you. But I don't tar all anti-war movements with this, just the Irish one, I've never had any experience with other country's anti-war movements.

I did raise a question about good ol' Silvio afterwards, but it was never answered, so I didn't bother asking again. As for Blair, if they don't see fit to bring up a man so close to our own doorstep then I just naturally assume they're not that bothered by him, or Britain's involvement, which again confirmed my idea that they were nothing short of a anti-American group.

liam88

13/03/2006, 4:58 PM

I'm with Jebus and Conor H on this one-I'm fed up of the whole anti-war bandwagon. Now I've no doubt some people genuinley care and are relativly moderate in how far they sware there views (See point 2) but my two main problems with the movement as a whole are:

1. The majority of these people never gave a flying fish about Saddam murdering Kurds, American bombing Serbia, Chinese opression of Tibet etc. But as soon as Bush leads twenty nine countries in an invasion of Iraq they're marching, chanting and shouting till they're blue in the face! Whole things smacks of anti-Americanism.

2. A lot of these protesters have gone too far-some actually condoning the Taliban and Palestinian militants! Now presumebly you'd 'be "anti-war" because you care about the lives of people in the Middle East....so what about the opression of people under the Taliban. Also is this bizzare idea that all Israeli's are evil and all Palestinians are peace loving kind hearted opressed people. Maybe they should read accounts of Jewish families ripped apart by anti-sematic murderous Palestinian suicide bombers! Munich massacre anyone?

Met someone the other day cheering that Hamas had won-as far as i'm aware Hammas are Islamic fanatics on course to de-reail the Middle EAst Peace process.
It's also somehow become left wing and Republican to support the Plasentinan/Iraqi struggle. I'm not saying all they're judgements are wrong i'm just saying their view is way off balance. I wouldn't be happy waving a Palestinian flag because of all the innocent people who've been killed 'for that flag'. When was the last time a Tibetan bombed a crowded pub in China??

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 5:01 PM

You're not doing yourself any favours emphasising "twenty nine" Liam. We all know just how many of those countries matter a damn on the world stage.

On your second point, define "a lot". I doubt you'll find more than a tiny percentage of people doing that.

On the third point, let's not forget why those countries are allegedly in Iraq: to bring democracy. You can't have it both ways...

On the subject in hand, I think at this stage that the "confusion" between "anti-war" and "anti-war movement", and "anti-american" and "anti-GOP" / "anti-bush" entirely suspicious. It seems very convenient to still get confused about it, when it's been explained a thousand times.

adam

Plastic Paddy

13/03/2006, 5:43 PM

I'm with Jebus and Conor H on this one-I'm fed up of the whole anti-war bandwagon. Now I've no doubt some people genuinley care and are relativly moderate in how far they sware there views... Whole things smacks of anti-Americanism.

That's the second time you have deliberately obfuscated this argument. And you still haven't addressed the first response.

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=447927&postcount=38

I think at this stage that the "confusion" between "anti-war" and "anti-war movement", and "anti-american" and "anti-GOP" / "anti-bush" entirely suspicious. It seems very convenient to still get confused about it, when it's been explained a thousand times

Indeed.

I look forward to your thoughts on either or both counts Liam.

:ball: PP

liam88

13/03/2006, 5:51 PM

You're not doing yourself any favours emphasising "twenty nine" Liam. We all know just how many of those countries matter a damn on the world stage.

MAybe not a world stage-but on a regional and ideological stage deffinatly. Troops from an Islamic country are now being sent to Iraq....changes things a lot...even if Jordan aren't a major world player.

On your second point, define "a lot". I doubt you'll find more than a tiny percentage of people doing that.

The point of the movement suggests the people involve prefer a pre-war Aghanistan/Iraq......as I said to an anti-war protester the other day "you find me a list of human rights abuses by the coalition forces in the 4 years coalition troops have been in Afghanistan and i'll put together a list of abuses by the Taliban in a four year period-then we'll compare"

On the third point, let's not forget why those countries are allegedly in Iraq: to bring democracy. You can't have it both ways...

Sorry could you tell me which part of my post you are replying to here.....as far as i'm aware both Afghanistan and IRaq have had elections since coalition troops have been in....thats a heck of a lot more democracy than those porr people had under the Taliban/Saddam
[/QUOTE]

mypost

13/03/2006, 6:51 PM

I'm fed up of the whole anti-war bandwagon. Now I've no doubt some people genuinley care and are relativly moderate in how far they sware there views (See point 2) but my two main problems with the movement as a whole are:

1. The majority of these people never gave a flying fish about Saddam murdering Kurds, American bombing Serbia, Chinese opression of Tibet etc. But as soon as Bush leads twenty nine countries in an invasion of Iraq they're marching, chanting and shouting till they're blue in the face! Whole things smacks of anti-Americanism.

2. A lot of these protesters have gone too far-some actually condoning the Taliban and Palestinian militants! Now presumebly you'd 'be "anti-war" because you care about the lives of people in the Middle East....so what about the opression of people under the Taliban. Also is this bizzare idea that all Israeli's are evil and all Palestinians are peace loving kind hearted opressed people. Maybe they should read accounts of Jewish families ripped apart by anti-sematic murderous Palestinian suicide bombers! Munich massacre anyone?

Met someone the other day cheering that Hamas had won-as far as i'm aware Hammas are Islamic fanatics on course to de-reail the Middle EAst Peace process.

I would normally say these protestors are a collection of bleeding hearts, and bored students on a day out, as these people are not anti-war, but anti-American. But in a way they have a point, however weak it is.

It is 3 years since the mission to rid a country of a tyrant started, but it's hard now to think why this war is still continuing. Saddam is gone, Iraq is a democracy, it's people are free, the elections have been held, the government is in place, the police are now trained, the country is being rebuilt, so there seems to be little reason now in staying put. It seems that the only challenge left is to withdraw troops without losing face. But the coalition can't stay there indefinitely, it's a challenge that must be faced sooner rather than later.

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 8:21 PM

MAybe not a world stage-but on a regional and ideological stage deffinatly.Definitely not imho. Most of the countries involved in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" either have an agenda or were bullied into it. Belief otherwise demonstrates desperation or gullibility.

The point of the movement suggests the people involve prefer a pre-war Aghanistan/IraqI've already covered the use of the word "movement", I won't repeat myself.

Let's put that old-hat straw-clutcher aside: Go outside in the street right now and ask passers-by what they think of the "war" in Iraq. When you find ten that object, ask them if they would prefer that silly thing you mentioned above. Count how many actually think that. Go on, off with you, you made the assertion, you need to either back it up or retract it.

"you find me a list of human rights abuses by the coalition forces in the 4 years coalition troops have been in Afghanistan and i'll put together a list of abuses by the Taliban in a four year period-then we'll compare"Another frankly embarassing piece of propaganda reminiscint of Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us". So I'll use it against you: Do Saddam's and the Taliban's abuses make it ok for the coalition to do it so?

Sorry could you tell me which part of my post you are replying to hereI referenced it clearly, don't blame me if you can't bullet-point your posts correctly.

adam

hamish

13/03/2006, 9:02 PM

Who are the actual organisers of this march??? Is it a coalition of groups or what??

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 9:09 PM

Coalition of the Willing hamish.

liam88

13/03/2006, 9:13 PM

Definitely not imho. Most of the countries involved in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" either have an agenda or were bullied into it. Belief otherwise demonstrates desperation or gullibility.

As you said that's your opinion. My opinion is that bullying 29 soveriegn states even for the USA is pretty hard. There are tates from pretty much every continent there and deffinatly with regional impacts int heir respected areas (I was mistaken in my reference to Jordan by the way-I had been told they were sending troops)

Go outside in the street right now and ask passers-by what they think of the "war" in Iraq. When you find ten that object, ask them if they would prefer that silly thing you mentioned above. Count how many actually think that. Go on, off with you, you made the assertion, you need to either back it up or retract it.

Yes I did make the assertion-now why is it a "silly thing"? I'll back it up with logic-Afghanistan has, roughly speaking, since the Taliban took over, existed in 2 stages: Controlled by Taliban/Controlled by Coaltion. Now presumebly those anti-war would rather the war never occured. With me? Now if the war never occured there would be Taliban rule (at least int he areas not controlled by the-equally barbaric on occassion-Northern Alliance). So surley either:

-If you are "anti-coaltion intervention" you would have wanted the coaltion never in Afghanistan i.e. Taliban rule remains

-If you are "anti-coaltion intervention" then you are against both Taliban rule and Coaltion rule in which case you want what? A peaceful transfer to democracy? How did you plan on that coming about? And if anti-war people were so anti-Taliban why wern't there mass lobbies for pressure for a peaceful transfer from Taliban rule?

.....not propegand-just logic-and I didn't need to go running round Guildford at 20:00 ;)

I'll use it against you: Do Saddam's and the Taliban's abuses make it ok for the coalition to do it so?

No....I'm just confused as to why there was never this level of supprot against the Taliban and aboutthe misconception that the coaltion are as bad as the Taliban-that was the point of the list analogy-there has less human rights abuse in 4 years of coaaltion control than in any 4 years of Taliban control.

I referenced it clearly, don't blame me if you can't bullet-point your posts correctly.

-No need to get personal; I made a polite reply

-Ok so Hamas were fairly elected I never said they wern't I was just suprised at the level of support for them from the Irish anti-war people I was speaking to.

-Your insult to the structure of my post missed out any reply to the point I made-there has been more demcoracy under the coaltion-elections in both countries-when was the last time of an open election in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I never said the USA/UK/Coaltion are perfect but to conclude:

-More democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan since coalition have intervened
-Less human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan since coalition have intervened
-A far bigger anti-war/anti-coalition movement in Ireland/UK than ever anti Taliban/ anti Saddam movement -why?

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 9:19 PM

Liam, I already told you I'm not going to repeat myself, and I'm not going to fish around in your post for points that aren't the same arguments retold. I will say, though, that your suggestion that people that oppose the "war", by extension support(ed) Saddam and the Taliban is frankly disgusting; and the primary reason I decided to stop reading your post. If you honestly believe that, well, I honestly feel sorry for you.

[Comment edited as it may be construed as personal by defensive types. :)]

adam

hamish

13/03/2006, 9:41 PM

1. I thought the "mission" to invade Iraq was because of Saddam's WMDs??
2. Iran is not a democracy - it's government is a shambles with various groups squabbling amongst themselves about government positions and
Shi-ite death squads masquerading as security forces murdering Sunnis who's death squads are murdering Shi-ites.
3.The police are ridden with corruption and simply representatives of the Shi-ite militias who are picking out Sunnis and murdering them and torturing them in prison cells - even the Yanks are complaining about this for God's sake.
4.The country produces less oil than pre-war, Baghdad gets about 4 hours electricity a day (less than pre war), most drinking water is either unavailable or polluted and outside the green zone, the government is non existent to Iraqis.
6. The biggest industry, according to the Baghdad Blogger in last week's Newsnight, is kidnapping - the most profitable growth industry.
7. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - notably doctors, scientists, teachers, nurses, public administrators etc etc have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and so on - depriving Iraq of a whole swath of people who could actually run the country.
8. To add insult to injury, the Bushies have now decided NOT to continue using the already approved funds to continue reconstruction. We're talking tens of millions here - needless to say the corrupt Halliburtons and others continue to make a mint.
9. Seventy two per cent of US soldiers in Iraq, polled last week, now feel that the Iraqi situation is untenable.

Iraq is a mess with rampant sectarianism and resulting murders and as a result of the idiotic and hypocritical neo-con agenda, a breeding ground for future terrorists. The shi-ites have strong links with Iran to add to the mess and the British have lost the support of Iraqis in the Basra area.
Ethnic cleansing is now happening, not only with regard to the Sunnis and Shi-ites but also in the Kurdish area where anyone not of Kurdish ethnicity are leaving in droves.

Even "hawks" like Jack Murtha (Democrat) and Chuck Hagel (Republican) - both decorated war heroes - have slammed the Bush regime on so many areas it's unreal.

The following is worth watching. It lasts about an hour. TBF/TBH, it's an association of Robert Greenwald and Move-on.org - hardly Bush fans but notice the amount of ex-CIA, Republicans ie Scott Ritter who tear the neo-con agenda and fraudulence to pieces in a brilliantly logical and systematic fashion.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm

How anybody with an ounce of intelligence can support any aspect of the obscenity that has transpired in Iraq sickens me.:mad: They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and examine their consciences.

Before anyone rambles on with the usual Wingnut BS about Iraqi freedom and democracy, don't forget Rumsfeldt shaking Saddams' hand in the late 80s whe he knew that that b@stard was murdering Kurds with toxic agents, supplied by Rumsfeldt's government in cahoots with Germany and the UK. and while the US was also supplying Iran with military weapons.

This is not about anti-Americanism - to say that is a shallow and hypocritical cheap shot against those who protest the obscenity - it's an anti- Bush and his fellow sleaze bags protest.

Shame on the lot of you who support anything that idiot pronounces.:mad:

BTW - Well said Dahamsta, it's also disengenuous to say that anti-war protesters are pro-Saddam and pro-Taliban either. FFS.

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 9:47 PM

1. I thought the "mission" to invade Iraq was because of Saddam's WMDs?Either that or his involvement in the WTC attacks hamish. ;)

I was just having a shower there ("picture that in your head there Father") when exactly those points occurred to me, because I realised just how old Liam's arguments are: People were making them before the war in Afghanistan, never mind Iraq; and they were facetious then, never mind now.

C'mon Liam, conform. After all, you're either with us or you're against us, right? No room for middle ground, perhaps even a tiny possibility that people opposed the war because it was done unilaterally, without consensus, possibly even illegally; that if it had been done right, those self-same people might - shock, horror - actually have supported it?

And, god forbid, if that had happened, there's just the slimmest possibility that Iraq mightn't be such a godawful mess now?

adam

hamish

13/03/2006, 9:52 PM

Either that or his involvement in the WTC attacks hamish. ;)

Funny you should mention that Adam.:)

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/13/fox_continues_the_lie_that_iraq_and_911_are_linked .php

What amazed me is how poorly informed anyone who supports the Bushies is -never let the facts get in the way of cut and paste propaganda.:rolleyes:

dahamsta

13/03/2006, 10:11 PM

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Göringhttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Herman_Goering#Nuremberg_Diary

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." -- George Bushhttp://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

hamish

13/03/2006, 10:12 PM

Bush poll numbers - majority of Yanks now have little faith in his handling of Iraq, Katrina, the economy etc.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12293.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12274.htm

strangeirish

13/03/2006, 10:18 PM

Careful now lads, we don't want Dubya seeing this. We might end up in his crosshairs.

hamish

13/03/2006, 10:21 PM

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Herman_Goering#Nuremberg_Diary

The more things change, the more they remain the same. - more Goering quotes plus others. As true today as 60 or so years ago.

“Shoot first and ask questions later, and don't worry, no matter what happens, I will protect you.”

“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for”

Winston Churchill
“In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies”

Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

hamish

13/03/2006, 10:27 PM

Careful now lads, we don't want Dubya seeing this. We might end up in his crosshairs.

If he's as good a shot as Cheney then dress up as a quail - you won't get hit.:)

on one hand

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

on the other

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

hamish

13/03/2006, 11:53 PM

March 13th, 2006 12:14 pm
Death squads operated from inside Iraqi government, officials say

By Matthew Schofield / Knight Ridder

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Senior Iraqi officials Sunday confirmed for the first time that death squads composed of government employees had operated illegally from inside two government ministries.
"The deaths squads that we have captured are in the defense and interior ministries," Minister of Interior Bayan Jabr said during a joint news conference with the Minister of Defense. "There are people who have infiltrated the army and the interior."
Also, Sunday, a series of deadly attacks hit the Shiite Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, which had recently been relatively safe, initiating another round of sectarian killings and threatening to provoke more.
Seven car bombs were left in markets around the poor Shiite area. Two exploded at 5:30 p.m., another at 5:35 p.m., two at 5:40 p.m. in a different market, and one at 5:45 p.m. Police found and defused the seventh.
The blasts, set off at the busiest time of the day just after poor residents would have returned from their jobs, yet before curfew, killed 46 people and wounded another 204. By Sunday night, the suburb of 2.5 million had been sealed off by police and the private militia of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army.
The targeting of Sadr City could provoke a strong political backlash. Sadr City is a bastion of support for al-Sadr, a key backer of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's bid for re-election. Al-Jaafari's nomination is strongly opposed by Sunni and Kurdish leaders, although he is supported by United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that is the largest in parliament.
The Mahdi Army was also extremely active in attacks on Sunni mosques in the aftermath of last month's bombing of a key Shiite shrine in Samarra that touched off a wave of sectarian killings.
Elsewhere around Baghdad, a series of roadside bombs and gun attacks killed another 17 people.
Interior Minister Jabr said that investigations into death squads were still ongoing in the Defense Ministry. He said the Interior Ministry had arrested 22 people, and subsequently released 18 as innocent after interrogation, detaining four for further questioning.
"Now we have sent them (the four) to the court because it hasn't been proven that all four were involved," Jabr said. "Although I did not have clear signs (of their guilt) I sent them to the justice ministry so that the law could be carried out."
Although Jabr appeared to confirm the existence of death squads, the scale of the operation uncovered would appear to be far smaller than critics had alleged.
Sunni Muslims have long complained about Shiite death squads that arrived wearing official uniforms and rode in official-looking vehicles to haul away victims.
Knight Ridder first reported the accusation of death squads in February last year, and in June documented many cases in which victims were taken away allegedly by men wearing Interior Ministry commando uniforms were later found handcuffed and executed with a bullet to the back of the head.
The government had long denied the existence of such death squads. Sunnis had accused the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia supported by Iran, of being behind the killings, inside or outside of government ministries. Jabr is a senior leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shiite political party, and has close ties to the Badr Organization.
The investigation that led to Sunday's confirmation of government death squads came after American forces stopped a group of men who were passing through a checkpoint in late January. The men wore official uniforms and said they were preparing to execute a Sunni man in their custody.
The atmosphere of chaos in Iraq has been stoked in part by the failure of politicians to form a new government nearly three months after national elections.

Knight Ridder Newspapers special correspondents Huda Ahmed, Mohammed Alawsy and Shatha Alawsy contributed to this report.

CollegeTillIDie

14/03/2006, 6:35 AM

Ok seeing as all my other posts on this issue were deemed tat here is a valid point for people signing petitions against any big power's foreign policy.

When I was a student in UCD you would see petitions against this that and the other in the corridors of Belfield. Many people signed these petitions especially those which took issue with U.S. foreign policy. These self-same signatories would then apply for J-1 visas to work for the summer and were quite surprised when their applications were refused... duh?

Nowadays with CCTV cameras available in O'Connell Street and with more sophisticated passports with biological features etc, it is within the remit of the techonology to isolate people from a protest march. So if people are going to march in the Protest, I wouldn't bother applying for a visa to visit the USA anytime soon if I were you!

CollegeTillIDie

14/03/2006, 6:37 AM

Iran, Iraq, Afganistan are all a mess.
However the current bunch of Septic 'politicians' & their cronies, Blair, Berluscoli etc have just exacerbated the situation.
Surely it's down to the native people within those countries to try to solve their own situation.......rather than accomodate interfering foreign powers......as we seen both at home & abroad.

It's just a pity the U.N. has often proved so toothless.

AS long as there are powers on the Security Council with a permanent right to veto the U.N.will be toothless. Especially as one of them ( U.S.A.) is behind in it's subscription fees payment schedule. What that does is deny the U.N. of adequate resources to fund it's many worthwhile organisations such as the W.H.O. and U.N.I.C.E.F.

CollegeTillIDie

14/03/2006, 6:56 AM

I was once approached in O'Connell Street to sign of these petitions. I was with a friend named Robert. When both of us asked the guy with the petition which organisation he represented , he got nervous, refused to answer the question and then told me to F***O**. So be careful what you sign folks cause you might not know who will be using your name!

dahamsta

14/03/2006, 10:22 AM

Surely it's down to the native people within those countries to try to solve their own situationI don't think the Iraqi / Afghani people were in a position to solve their own situation, because Saddam and his cronies stomped on any form of opposition that appeared. Somtimes you've just got to be a good neighbour. I just don't think the Bush administration was doing that, I think they had agenda. Call it oil, call it imperialism, call it what you want, I just call it an agenda.

adam

Hither green

14/03/2006, 10:35 AM

Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And as true today as 500 years ago as Goebbels must have ripped that off Machiavelli:

“People are fickle by nature; and it is a simple to convince them of something but difficult to hold them in that conviction; and, therefore, affairs should be managed in such a way that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.”

-If you are "anti-coaltion intervention" you would have wanted the coaltion never in Afghanistan i.e. Taliban rule remains

If that’s what being anti-war means then yes I must want the Taliban to remain and Saddam to still be in power. I certainly don’t miss those regimes but I regret how they were overthrown. If I could turn back the clock and could stop the wars then I guess they would still be in power. There are odious regimes throughout the world, if the west wants to be world policemen and champion of democracy then they can do so indiscriminately and not just pick on the countries they don’t like. Top of my list would be Zimbabwe, China and Israel.

And as for Irish support for Hamas... what a small impoverished citizen army fighting against an evil and wealthy occupying regime and without international assistance, I wonder why the Irish would support that?