One View of the events of March 1st Shannon Airport

by Blofeld Sun Mar 02, 2003 22:36

ROFLMAO

by Damien Sun Mar 02, 2003 22:53

Yes, "cult" is an accurate description. They are like a left-wing version of the scientologists. Also, why is it that groups which use the word "worker" in their name are usually mainly composed of middle-class students who rarely do any work (except paper-selling)

by Cork activist Sun Mar 02, 2003 22:54

Do we really have to accept 'news' postings that are entirely inaccurate and motivated by sectarian bile? I'd buy the Sunday Independent if I wanted to read this rubbish. The IAWM march was between 1,200 and 1,500 - the equation of the SWP and IAWM is utter nonsense. Grow up.

by Truthgiver Sun Mar 02, 2003 22:57

With regard to megaphones: there was no shortage of them at the Grassroots protest.

by Dave J Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:01

The main march was about the same size as the DA protest. Yeah dead on. By the way is doing the can can beside a wire fence the cutting edge of direct action. Come on, we want more laughs like this.

by Unamerican Chris Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:04

I must really refute you labelling me sectarian as I fiercely maintain independance from any political groupings, ideologies, or mass movements, save the common human desire for peace, love and security free from the authority of any one over any one else. If I wanted to trade the capitalist bosses for so-called socialist ones I'd go have my head examined. Any revolution will only come from creative, spontaneous, action taken by individuals who are motivated by common love and respect for all their sentient equals. I don't need megaphones shouting in my ears thank you very much.

by Dave J Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:26

You can say that again. I've never read such a work of fiction. You need to get over the thing you have with megaphones, have you seen a shrink or what? Oh and the tactics you defend are hilarious when you mention them along side revolution. So lets issue a statement to the cops and media about tearing down a fence. Then when only 200 turns up, outnumbered and outsmarted by the agents of the state, shake the fence for a couple of minutes. Then to cap it all you slag off the organisers of a much better organised rally who at least attempt to connect with where ordinary people or at this point in time. Let us never again hear the attacks on the notion of 'the vanguard party' from anarchists. Yesterday was a disgace and a brilliant example of elitism - the action of the special few on behalf of everyone else. Direct action has its place - but what was done yesterday was an absolute joke. You should be ashamed.

by Manny Sun Mar 02, 2003 23:34

Yesterday was an example of people completely misjudging the public mood. This fetish about direct action has become a pain in the hole! Can we please get back to mobilising thousands and stop this ideologically driven shite?

by T Barry - GNAW (personal capacity) Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:20

Dave -Feel free to criticise the Grassroots attempt at a mass trespass. It was a gamble to announce our plans on Indymedia but you are straining logic to suggest that it was a mistake to publicly call for a mass trespass and in the same breath say it was “elitist”. The planned direct action didn’t happen because there wasn’t enough people- that doesn’t mean civil disobedience is not a useful tactic. It does show however that scaremongering and shite talk undermine the anti war movement as a whole.

Why “elitist”, why “ashamed”, why emotional hyperbolia instead of analysis? A movement is as strong as the sum of it parts -so it would of been preferable if there were greater numbers at both events in Shannon yesterday.

As you say Direct action does have its place but for some it seems to be a great idea as long as someone else does it preferably in another country.

by hunter - pfln Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:21

in fact, the iawm march did stop in solidarity with the gnawers for about 5 minutes - and as for 'preventing marchers to go and join the gnaw' - another lie, as i at that point was in the middle of the sp contingent and had no problems walking over and chatting to some of the DA posse. the iawm contingent was at least three times as big as the gnaw one (more lies there chris), and quite a few of the DAers ended coming up to see the 'pointless speeches' and music, cos the DA posse had vacated the 'vicinity of the giniril area' - to use gardaspeak. chris, are you hope brendan o'connor is looking at your post right now and will offer you an internship at the Sindo?

and at the end of the day, from what i can gather from family and friends reports of the media coverage on the day, outside of the INN coverage (they supply midlands radio and other regional stations) the mainstream media concentrated on the 10 arrests and not the larger demo, the stated aims of the gnaw, or - crucially - THE USE OF SHANNON BY THE US MILITARY! this protest has done nothing to empower ordinary people AT ALL.

admit it guys, the DA was a complete farce, and what could have been a mass mobilisation of thousands turned out to be a screw up, with only 1000ish of the 'usual suspects' - ie the groups who iniatiated the iawm waaaaay back in 2001 (swp, sp, isn et al - minus the greens) and the 250 or so gnawers. after this it should be clear that the anti-war sentiment of this country lies with the iawm and that richard boyd barret, much as i disagree with much of his variety of socialism, is a better spokesperson for anti-war sentiment that any bunch of self appointed ideological saviors. in another post someone mentioned that rather than 'direct action' as an ideological fetish, what is really needed is 'action with direction'. certainly in this case, this person speaks the truth. another posters said that the gnaw activities 'were an attempt to outflank the trots' - maybe so, maybe not.

when the tide turns in your direction, don't swim against it, don't try to divert it, dont try to dam it. thats the states role. a mass movement is necessary here, and i think the people have again spoken, this time by sayin nothing. anarchism is about empowering people? that much i agree with, but these actions have, as predicted by the likes of the sp and swp, simply alientated people. like i said in my report about the iawm demo (http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31678), i was there cos i thought it was important to make the point (especially after the shameful pullouts of the lp, sf, gp, pana and afri), as were all the rest of the iawm contingent.

now lets hope that the turnout for the regional demos on sat is more in line with what we were expecting down in shannon. regional being the key word here; successful regional protests/activities will do more to empower ordinary people than 250 gnawers "dancing the can-can" at a fence in shannon dontcha think? i certainly do. these demos will hopefully give people confidence, empower them to become builders and leaders (oooh i said a bad word there didn't i?) and to successfully bring the movement forward. a mistake was made here, lets acknowledge it, and learn from it.

and on a final note, someone on the wire (mr jinks) told me 'to get a job'. id just like to tell him, in the words of the late great joe strummer, "i got a job - but it don't pay". why? because i 'live off the state' and do voluntary work on a daily basis, and ye know what, im sure i get more satisfaction out of this than he does outta his (even tho he can allegedly afford a car to - i paraphrase - 'drive around and laugh at protestors'). I think jinksy may be Irish American in disguise.

by hunter - pfln Mon Mar 03, 2003 01:35

"Why “elitist”, why “ashamed”, why emotional hyperbolia instead of analysis?"

well, a) the original post didn't offer analysis, it offered lies and slagging of the iawm. and b) if you want analysis there have been two or three good analyses of the protest (in my opinion) and can be found here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31764

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31737

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31765

"As you say Direct action does have its place but for some it seems to be a great idea as long as someone else does it preferably in another country."

Ok it wasnt me that you were addressing, but DA does have a place - but what you have to consider is the OUTCOME of DA. DA in the water tax struggle was correct and won the day, the bin taxes DA of non payment and soon to be dumping on council propery is correct, eoin dubsky's tagging of the warplane raised awareness - and the student occupations cannot be left out. the result of these actions was positive, the result of the shannon DA on saturday appears to me to have been wholly negative for the movement (see reasons outlined above).

by zzzzzzzzz Mon Mar 03, 2003 02:12

zzzzzzzzz............

by T Barry - GNAW (personal capacity) Mon Mar 03, 2003 02:17

Hunter wrote-"if you want analysis there have been two or three good analyses of the protest (see URLs above)"

I have read all of these. The first is, I think, worth responding to and I have done so. The second is ill-informed and disingenous so I’ll pass on that. The third is not really an analysis of the attempted mass trespass.

Hunter wrote- “DA does have a place - but what you have to consider is the OUTCOME of DA".

Of course you have to consider the outcome. The point of DA is the outcome. A question though- by what criteria have you judged the DAs listed above as “correct” or “positive” and the planned mass trespass as “negative”?. I have read the posts above and it is by no means clear what evidence you have for your assertions. Secondly, explain in detail, if you have the time, how refuelling will be stopped by more marches and what concretely has been done by the SP and the IAWM to encourage and facilitate the sort of direct action by the workers in Shannon that we would all like to see.

by Andrew Mon Mar 03, 2003 13:09

Frankly I'm not impressed with the report which is inaccurate (there was a lot more then 250 on the IAWM march, it was 2 to 3 times the sizen of the GNAW one) and seems simply intended to sow divisions. The predictable anonymous SWP reponse to try and pretend this is some sort of official GNAW statemeent is simply dishonest and not worth discussing further.

The attempte to blame the split in the IAWM on GNAW makes no sense whatsoever. GNAW is not part of theIAWM, blaming us for your splits makes as much sense as blaming the PD's - actually that would be closer to the truth as they demanded a split from the Greens.

by john - Organise-ASF personal capacity Mon Mar 03, 2003 20:02 revol36 at aol dot com

First things first, the term direct action has been bandied about alot during these discussions so I think i should clarify how anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists understand direct action.

Simply stated, direct action refers to action undertaken directly between two individuals or groups, without the intervention of a third party. In the case of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, the principle of direct action has a specific meaning: the rejection of participation in parliamentary or statist poltiics and the adoption of tactics and strategies which place responsibility for action firmly in the hands of the workers themselves.

okay so thats a wide definition, well thats because direct action is wide. Direct action doesnt have to be confrontational, and it certainly doesnt have to be violent.

The think that the direct action was all about takin down the fence would be to miss principal objective of direct action, empowerment. Those people who went with the pink flags were still engaging in direct action by offering help, relaying news and the people doin the food not bombs were also engagin in direct action by givin out food.

To claim that direct action is elitist is at best ignorant or at worst an attempt to discredit a tatic that the working class has been doin for hundreds of years.

To those people sayin direct action is not right at the moment, that we should be aiming at strikes, walkouts and occupations, YES EXACTLY! but all these are examples of direct action. Workers on strike are engagin in direct action people occupying government offices are engaged in direct action.

As to whether or not the Direct Action failed in its purpose on Saturday, well that depends. Obviously the fence failed to come down, but does that mean it failed, No, because even in its "failure" it did something that marching around Dublin or Belfast didn't(not that im saying these marches werent a great expression of opposition to the war) it broke throught the bullshit of liberal "democracy" it showed that when push comes to shove they will use violence or the threat of violence to maintain there order.Standing arm to arm with a complete stranger but with a common goal is also empowering, it helps us overcome are atomisation and builds real bonds of solidarity.

Anyone watching Bush and Blair using the marches to milk the idea that we live in a democratic society should take note that legal demostrations are not in themselves a serious worry for the state, rather its how this level of opposition will be channeled. Will it stay within the boundaries of protest or will it become resistance! will people go back home to watch the battle on BBC News or will they actively oppose the war. by actively opposing the war im not talking about everyone smashing up planes but strikes, walkouts and occupations.

Those claiming that direct action is elitist is really talkin nonsense, no one was arguin that everyone should be at the fence, obviously not everyone can afford to put themselves in such a position, that was exactly why there was a pink section for people who wanted to show solidarity. let me put like this what is more elitist a group of people who agreed a action at a open meeting and who made sure that there were options that suited everybody or a march which involves people walkin from point a to b to hear a few speeches from some self important proffesional revolutionary/liberal.

To clarify regarding the "hi-jacking" of the march by extremists this is complete nonsense. The action was agreed to by the grassroots network and subsequently the IAWM anounced they would be at shannon at the same time but would not have anything to with the grassroots action.
whilst i respect the right off groups to do their own actions i dont see why they could not have joined the pink section? or at least refrain from stabbin the grassroots network in the back (did they use an icepick? ha ha) to all the media that would listen to them.

As to the actions of the green party or the Shinners well what did you expect? they are more worried about elections and media coverage than stoppin a war.

I also feel the SWP is extremely hypocrtical in its denouncement of violence and vanguardist elitism considering it had no problem givin "unconditional but critical support" to the Provos in the past not to mention its very uncritical line on the FARC or Hamas.Infact i dont think i have ever read or herad the SWP criticise any of these groups more than it criticised grassroots network.

Id just like to add that i didnt agree with the exact tatics used in the direct action but i accepted them as the democratic will of the network and i cannot say i was denied input into the decision.

Social Revolution is about empowerment, its about realising our own strength but its also a learnin process. WE MAY HAVE FAILED BUT OUR FAILURE IS STILL WORTH MORE THAN ANY VICTORY GAINED THROUGH ANY CENTRAL COMMITEE!

"The emancipation of the wroking class is the task of the working class" K-Marx
If only some socialists could grasp that simple maxim more readily than the 3 volumes of Das Kapital!

by zzzzzzzzzzzz Mon Mar 03, 2003 20:31

Let's all meet up to practice our dancing before the next demo.

"Virtual warriors can dance in their virtual world while they are tearing down their virtual internet fences"

Yawn

zzzzzzzzz...........

by Intransigent Tue Mar 04, 2003 00:55

Do you remember Kronstadt?

by zzzzzzzzz Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:21

zzzzzzzz.......

by Joe Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:10

For those who are not aware the quote that zzzz keeps re-posting ("Virtual warriors can dance in their virtual world while they are tearing down their virtual internet fences") is from Joe Higgins, the Socialist Party TD.

He launched this attack from the IAWM platform at the terminal pretty much as GNAW were trying to tear down the fence with grabbling hooks. 10 people were arrested at or before this time. All within about 300m of where Joe was verbally attacking them.

Thanks for the solidarity Joe and thanks for proving that electoralism does what it is meant to. Turning once decent people into those willing to backstab for a few votes in the next election.

by Intransigent Sun Mar 09, 2003 02:22

I am not too fond o anarchists but compared to you would stand shoulder to shoulder with them anyday you little bastard. Though you probably are just Joe Higgins. Shouldn't you be off at a meeting of a committee to a sub-committee responsible to another committee Joe. Go get them electoral politics and milk it for what it's worth. Zzzzz I'm gonna get you and then give you to GNAW. Nothing like a little fucker to bring about some unity. I still remember Kronstadt.