Dublin Anti War Protest Sat 22 Mar 2003

Friday March 21, 2003 20:53

by Aj

After what you've just seen, please get out and voice your concern.

We've just seen what Awe and Shock is. Imagine if your child had to hear the noise, the loud explosions of 500, 1000 and 2000 pound bombs. Now imagine your child was in Bagdad and had to live though that, cuddled up in your arms, crying with fear. Not knowing through their genuine innocence what is going on. For them its the end of the world. Could your child every get over this?

In order to show your protest please turn up to the protest in Dame street @ 2pm Sat 22nd March 2003.

No matter what your opinion is, what we have just witnessed was way OTT. It may have looked like a massive special effects effort on the set of a hollywood blockbuster, but alas it was not. It was real life with real people in those buildings. Sure its easy to dismiss them as bad Iraqi's, as the republican guard blah blah blah. I'm sick of it. Does that not mean that a person whom is not a military target cannot walk around as well and get hit by Awe and Shock weapons.

What about the shop next door to the military barracks, the little old lady's house, that as is in this country, located across the road. Its just not on.

Its the year 2003. No matter what your thoughts are on this war, surley there is a better way. WHy not use all this technology to kill sadam using a poison dart or something, Tones and tonnes of bombs are not the way, not any more. There is still too much pain lurking around from our own wars, from world wars in the last century. God soetimes I think its better to die now ratehr than to live through and put my children through this awful world. How can we be so inventive at ways of killing each other.

And lets just not make this march a call for peace in the Middle East, but for every where. The IRA, UVF, RIRA, and other accromyns of death need to be told that the ordinary common Irishman and womna will not tollerate this anymore. Sure us adults may be hard and cynical now, but what about your children, your future children, your loved ones. Can we have this anymore.

There are many things you can do tomorrow. From just showing up and voicing your opinion, to direct action. What ever you do, be peaceful, be compassionate and remember that guards, diplomats and others all are human too. Just maybe in a rut, can't get out, or just making mistakes. Its up to you. Personally, I'm just showing up, and if you ever think that one person cannot change thinks, look up a guy called Nelson Mandella and read about how he, just one guy, can have a considerable effect on the globe.

Take care and see you tomorrow.

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

eloquent

by simon

Fri Mar 21, 2003 21:22

nicely put : its good to feel that there are rational but passionate people within this framework also. See you tomorrow everybody!!!!

Remember some other humans: Hitler, Bush, Pol Pot, Stalin

by Phuq Hedd

Fri Mar 21, 2003 22:03

and remember that Mandela did not operate in a vacuum: there was the ANC (a _terrorist_ organisation), the PAC (a _terrorist_ organisation) and there were hundreds of thousands of people out in the street throwing bricks, starting fires, being shot, whipped, tear-gassed and necklaced by the police and their Zulu auxiliaries.

There is a strong argument for avoiding violence (ie. attacks on other humans) because of the negative backlash it might create, but don't go clouding the issue with half-baked ultra-pacifist rhetoric.

Reply to Phuq

by AJ

Fri Mar 21, 2003 23:05

I am aware of Mandela's involvement with the ANC, however I am also aware of the excellent work he does by himself today. I am also aware that he only resorted to voilence as a last resort. Your post more to the point I think leads to the question, at what point is a struggle a terrorist activity or a legitamate struggle against freedom and oppression?

As for my ultra pacifist rhetoric, well, I can say that I am certainly not a pacifist. Phuq, there are times in my opinion when military action is called for and when it is not. However with every war there should be close and careful consideration before deciding to undertake such action. There also must be a consensus. None of these I think (Again in my opinion) have been apparent in the current situation. As fair as I am aware, there was a consensus in WW2 as there was eventualy with the ANC.

This also begs the argument, that man should have learned from last centuary, where wars were fough and lives lost, lots of lives. Surley in this case it is easier to take one or a few men out of the equation by means of assination / abduction rather than mass military movements? Yes you could argue that where does this stop? Whom decides who is to die and live who is a better ruller etc, but I think if you apply common sense here you shall find the answers.

Phuq, how is the protection of a child from something so horrible as war clouding the issue. Should you and I as men/women not be trying harder to ensure that events of the like witnessed tonight are prevented.

Apply common sense, see the spirit of the words, look past their literal meaning and see the bigger picture. As an example of a human, Mandela, would in my opinion be a good example.

Correction

by aj

Fri Mar 21, 2003 23:07

Sorry the fist sentence should read :: at what point is a voilent action a terrorist activity or a legitamate struggle FOR freedom and oppression

AJ, I agree with the idea of being non-violent for now.

Fri Mar 21, 2003 23:42

But your post threw up the image of Mandela in association with the idea of peacefulness. That is a distortion both of his involvement with a very violent organisation and the context in which he was able to undertake non-violent actions. S.Africa was facing domestic insurgence including bombing from at least two terrorist organisations and also fighting proxy wars in Angola and Mozambique.

You didn't mention Gandhi, but I expect someone will and so I'll just "pre-empt" that: Gandhi's actions were deeply threatening to the British who already had to deal with violent extremists and feared that he would precipitate Mutiny 2.

The point is that we are in the middle of a war undertaken by an unelected leader of a hitherto unsurpassedly powerful nation who has just told the "consensus" of democratic states to go to hell.

Either we stop this, or we live in a new world and it isn't going to be the one of "peace" that we both so love.

I don't agree with violent actions right now because they would enable security-force repression, but I'm not going to close off legitimate means of struggle as an option.

I'd also like to be VERY clear that violence only involves the hurting of another human being.

Agreed

Sat Mar 22, 2003 01:28

Sorry I did not mean to ignore the fact of Mandel's history, but right now he is doing quite well. As for everthing else, spot on boy.

unclear

Sat Mar 22, 2003 03:37

You leave me unclear as to whether or not you would justify violence to persue a struggle that you see fit. That struggle being the pursuit of peace. You leave yourself open ("but I'm not going to close off legitimate means of struggle as an option"). what's legitimate?

It seems to be a bit like spending money to make money.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Dublin Anti War Protest Sat 22 Mar 2003

Comments (7 of 7)