Indymedia article condones physical violence

pete

ChityWest wrote:

Right well forgive me for not taking your word for it this time then.

That's fair enough I suppose. I probably wouldn't either

What I can say is that I've just tried to find out what actually happened & the reasoning behind it (on both sides) and guess what - it turns out it's a bit more complex than the thug vs thug analysis which seems to be prevalent on this thread.

Incidentally, another thing that's left out is the fact that this wasn't just an AFA thing - another group were also involved who were all in their mid-teens.

therecklessone

Jaysus, scary flashbacks to meeting Richard Boyd Barrett for a coffee and chat about the "movement" in that crappy burger bar on the corner of Talbot Street and Marlborough Street, and ANL meetings in Conways...:eek:

Back on topic, the actions of AFA Ireland can't be justified, regardless of the motivations for this CW meet up. I hate finding myself defending the rights of fascists, but until/unless they break the law they're entitled to think and act as they please. The more one tries to stifle the voice of unreason, the more it spreads. Don't give them martyrs.

ChityWest

pete wrote:

Actually you're not a million miles from what I understand to be the AFA position there, as they only perceive a "threat" once the actual organising starts - e.g. individuals are free to hold whatever opinions and they like and be as wrong as they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Once again I'm not a support or member of, involved with or related to AFA.

Matter of fact I am light years away from those people - thanks. And again where do afa think they get the right to act on their perceptions - they can percieve what they want - 'once the organising starts' - dont you mean once people are sitting peacefully in a bar >?

So what if afa PERCIEVE that as whatever they want to percieve it as - it still doesnt move the situation one inch closer to them being justified based on their 'perceptions'. Moral guardians that they are - ! how enlightened of them to take on this extra-judicial role for everyone else - aww shucks - there just like the a team arent they. (Except hitting people for real).

pete

ChityWest wrote:

Matter of fact I am light years away from those people - thanks. And again where do afa think they get the right to act on their perceptions - they can percieve what they want - 'once the organising starts' - dont you mean once people are sitting peacefully in a bar >?

No, I said "once the organising starts". What wasn't clear?

As I said already, and has been stated elsewhere, and has not been refuted by the celtic wolves (quite the opposite, in fact) they knew exactly what the purpose of this meeting was.

You're perfectly entitled to choose not to believe that, but you'd be wrong.

ChityWest

pete wrote:

No, I said "once the organising starts". What wasn't clear?

It was clear that 'organising' in this instance equates to meeting in a bar. Anybody else fancy some organising for the match tomorrow night ?

pete wrote:

As I said already, and has been stated elsewhere, and has not been refuted by the celtic wolves (quite the opposite, in fact) they knew exactly what the purpose of this meeting was.

So in other words if afa (or say the national front / the bnp to use the other side of the coin to put some non biased perspective on this situation) if XXXXX Group percieve you as a threat and you dont deny it ('quite the opposite in fact' - were your words ) - then your fair game ?

Again I dont care what they were talking about - or what you or anyone else guesses that they were talking about - going down that road is a lot like making excuses for thug violence. And can you clarify - this bit . . . .

pete wrote:

You're perfectly entitled to choose not to believe that, but you'd be wrong.

Do you mean I would be wrong by saying that - you or I or the afa dont know what those people were talking about in that pub ?

Is that the part you are saying I am wrong about ? If so we can agree to differ on that one. I am not convinced - and also its not relevant.

Brian Capture

I'm confused as to why Chekov's parents named him Chekov. That is a surname.
It's the same as calling a child Smith.

Chakar

I wouldn't worry about this stuff, they're a small minority of people if they're caught by the Garda they will be prosecuted End of.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

It was clear that 'organising' in this instance equates to meeting in a bar. Anybody else fancy some organising for the match tomorrow night ?

Not really a valid comparison, because that would be simply "meeting in a bar". Anyway I hate football.

"Organising" (in the context of this discussion) would be, say, meeting for the purpose of the commissioning or planning of racist attacks; a load of people who just happen to be racists meeting for a pint and a chat about the footie would not be considered "Organising" (in the context of this discussion).

In AFA's view, the former would be something to be confronted head-on and prevented from happening (yes, violently or under the threat of violence, if necessary), whereas the latter would not.

Once again, I don't actually agree with this stance.

So in other words if afa (or say the national front / the bnp to use the other side of the coin to put some non biased perspective on this situation) if XXXXX Group percieve you as a threat and you dont deny it ('quite the opposite in fact' - were your words ) - then your fair game ?

You know, I actually probably would be considered "fair game", for reasons we won't dwell on now - so it's kind of stating the obvious to say I don't agree with this statement.

In any case, you're not really presenting an accurate reflection of the situation. To simplify: on one hand we have a group who target those they consider inferior / un-irish (see list previously posted) for a hate-driven campaign of intimidation and / or violence (that would be the Celtic Wolves, BTW); and on the other hand, we have those who wish to prevent them from doing so (and that would be AFA). It's not really comparing like with like

To reiterate - AFA don't particularly care what these guys think, but will do their best to prevent them from organising and escalating from harmless fantasist to dangerous activists. And while I don't agree with AFA's methods, I can't really disagree with their intentions.

Again I dont care what they were talking about - or what you or anyone else guesses that they were talking about - going down that road is a lot like making excuses for thug violence.

And again - we're not talking about a casual saturday afternoon chat down the boozer. If you do a little reading up on the Celtic Wolves you'll see that in their own words they have stated on numerous occasions that this is precisely what they are not about.

They see themselves as a reaction to those they consider internet / armchair racists / "patriots" and believe in furthering their cause through their actions, not words. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer what they mean by "action" (once again, based on their own words). The meeting last saturday was set up to further these goals and increase their membership, and was not set up as a casual get together. This would be considered reason enough by AFA to disrupt it.

Do you mean I would be wrong by saying that - you or I or the afa dont know what those people were talking about in that pub ?

Is that the part you are saying I am wrong about ? If so we can agree to differ on that one. I am not convinced - and also its not relevant.

Agree to differ it is so.

ChityWest

pete wrote:

In any case, you're not really presenting an accurate reflection of the situation. To simplify: on one hand we have a group who target those they consider ******* / ******** (see list previously posted) for a hate-driven campaign of intimidation and / or violence (that would be the ******* ****** BTW); and on the other hand, we have . . . . .

It seems to me that your quote could just as easily be applied to the afa. A hate driven campaign of intimidation and violence - ?

You keep mentioning that you dont agree with afa - but you seem to keep trying to justify/make excuses for their behaviour. You could describe it as putting the events into context - I would say that its making excuses - and I am sure that the skin heads would probably do the same - make excuses and try and put their spin on what happened. Just as SPUC made excuses for their behaviour back in the day - or the ALF make excuses for digging up human remains - there are lots of excuses out there- its the actions which matter - and in this case they are illegal and for good reason. You me and the afa dont have the right to get a gang together and attack people you/me/the afa dont agree with.

I think the relevant parts of this all boil down to the fact of one person clenching their fist and attacking another - when the other was outnumbered and not being aggressive.

This carried out against people who hold political beliefs that afa find unacceptable. That and drinking in a bar - though admittedly according to you if they had been watching a match and not 'organising' then they would have been allowed to do so without violence. Who the **** do the afa think they are ? I mean seriously. Jesus H ****ing Christ ! Talk about thought police.

All the background to this - the beliefs opinions thoughts - I mean EVEN if one of these 4 people had actually committed a crime under a law which is on Irish statute books - who said that the afa are the new police ? If there such brave crime fighters why not take on some actual gangsters ? They took on some people who were being peaceful - and they did it while they outnumbered them - and by their own account they did it without physical provocation or even reprisal. And here you come making excuses for them.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

This carried out against people who hold political beliefs that afa find unacceptable.

Based on this sentence alone it seems clear that you either haven't read or haven't understood what i've written. If that's due to a lack of clarity on my part, I apologise, but I think I've said all I can say on the subject.

ChityWest

Fair enough - (and in case your wondering no I dont think that the muppet skinheads deserve anyone arguing their corner) - I just dont think that indymedia should be as blase about facilitating & glorifying thug behaviour.

I would feel the same about a right wing site doing the same against attacks on leftwing people. One of the main things here is Indymedia is closer to being a mainstream site than their equivalent on the right (whatever that may be). The fact that a green party TD has posted on it as part of their pr campaign says a lot about how close to mainstream they are.

Beer is Life

Pete - Just wondering, do you know where AFA got their evidence these guys were organising racist attacks?

Karl Hungus

pete wrote:

That's not exactly a fair or accurate description of what was going on though, because they weren't just "having a pint", were they? They were holding a meeting (and, apparently, a recruitment session) of the Celtic Wolves, a highly secretive Irish racist group whose members have claimed or not-very-subtly hinted on the message board of a certain major international white nationalist / white power website to have been responsible for a range of illegal activities, ranging from incitement to hatred (see: "no to chinatown" CW stickering campaign) to "whatever is necessary" (paraphrasing)

I think that is a fair and accurate description.

What I don't think is fair, is the extremely loose definition of what would be considered "Public domain" and therefor culpable for repercussions based on idealogy and allusions to a possible threat. Where exactly is the line drawn? People can meet in a pub, resteraunt, or any public place, and discuss things, be they business, politics, the weather, whatever. When exactly does that stop being people having a pint (for example) and start becoming a 'meeting' and who exactly decides that?

If I invited someone over to my house for a cup of tea and a chat, and that person happened to be a member of the Celtic Wolves, who's to say this is or is not a 'meeting' and whether or not I'm fair game for this self-appointed lynch mob that is the AFA?

Seeing as they've no problem with taking the law in to their own hands, the answer is indisputably that it is AFA's decision; their defition of what counts as a 'meeting' and no doubt their decision of who is culpable as a "Fascist" and deserving of their judgement.

Now do not mistake this for looking for any kind of definition, from you, Indymedia, or AFA and AY. While I certainly have problems with the fact the definition could be so up in the air, the very real problem is that the decision making on this lies with the same self-appointed group of vigilantes. They make the call on who is or isn't a "Fascist" and then act on it violently.

From the AFA wiki article:

Groups identified as fascist are typically those associated with white supremacy, racism and political authoritarianism, whether of an openly Nazi or fascist character, or of a looser kind of right-wing populism.

Given the excrutiatingly broad definition of what racism is today, and given the tendancy of certain left-wing groups to resort to calling all those who wouldn't agree with their viewpoint a racist (RAR for example), then it's no stretch of the imagination that basically anyone can be in danger from AFA if they don't agree with their politics.

pete wrote:

The AFA goal was to show up at the meeting to highlight to the Celtic Wolves that if you're going to try to organise with like-minded individuals for a campaign of intimidation and violence against anyone you consider to be non-white, non-patriot Irish then you shouldn't expect to be able to do it in secret.

So the only goal was to tell them that they shouldn't expect to meet in secret? That's it? Is this to suggest that if the Celtic Wolves had made it a publically known meeting, that the AFA would have no problem? Pure fantasy tbh.

pete wrote:

Note: Previously identified list of enemies of Ireland includes, but is not limited to: immigrants (of any colour), gays, "race traitors", trade unionists, jews, muslims, anyone to the left of Aine Ni Chonaill's ICP on the political spectrum, anyone who's pro-choice, phil lynott, samantha mumba, black taxi drivers, black bus drivers and Adrian Kennedy. If you do happen to fall into any of those demographics and bump into a CW member, make sure to point out your support of their right to free assembly while they stamp your face into the pavement. I'm sure they'll really appreciate it.

You see, I think you're doing nothing but scare-mongering. So is Chekov, and anyone else who's warnings of ethically targeted violence are published on Indymedia. I think that's the real incitement to hatred, and it's on your part.

Why? Well, I did a little digging for information on Stromfront, and I came up with this, which seems to be the genesis of that meeting. And you know what's interesting about it?

The more I think about it, the more I think it would be a good thing for people on this board to meet in public. I think we really lack a sense of community here.

Im not suggesting meeting for any kind of activism, or anything, just a meet so that people here could get to know each other. See the real human face behind the name on an internet forum.

the way I think about it is people here probably know a lot of other people who have similar views. The amount posting on stormfront Ireland isnt representative of racially conscious people in Ireland. if we started meeting up we could form a larger group then when we have some decent numbers we can organise protests and things.

it would be important that we should not post about here, but only organise a meet up by private message. people could message others that they trust on this board and send around the information that way. I think we all know that there are a lot of leftist pc zealots who would react violently towards people who have views other than theirs, and we know they monitor this site.

so what do you think? could it work? I hope so

And further into that thread:

It doesn't matter if your not fighters or violent people because I am NOT suggestion any violent action at all. this is just a meet up.

Remember that were are opposed to criminals and these violent congo apes that are coming into our country. We are also oppossed to extremist pc zealots who will resort to violence to squash out our opinions. let us not stoop to their level.

Yes, that's very interesting indeed. What do I gather from this? That for the most part, the people who are posting on Stormfront, are against violence. I think it has been established that this 'meeting' had nothing to do with activism, this really was just 4 people having a pint. I believe that it has also been established that they do not intend to take any violent action at all, and the long-term plans are to have "A Protest."

So what exactly have the Celtic Wolves done? "A sticker campaign" and some admittedly para-phrased allusion, by you, to doing "Whetever is necessary"? None of this indicates to me that this group, or for the most part, the patronage of Stormfront's Irish section, have any intentions of a violent reaction to 'Non-whites' as they put it. They want to be able to hold a protest. And that's a long term goal!

Furthermore, in 2004 Justin Barrett was assaulted by AFA because he was going to speak about immigration at UCD. Somehow I doubt that he was going to get together a lynch mob afterwards, and round up some immigrants. AFA simply attacked him in order to stop him speaking, and ergo airing his views publically.

Accusations that anyone who might hold racist, or right-wing views, therefor must want to act violently, and "Stamp your face into the pavement" as you put it, are nothing more than fallacy and scare-mongering. You, AFA, AY, Indymedia and anyone else who holds this opinion are tarring entire demographics of people with the same brush; That if you are on 'that side' of the political spectrum, then you want to accomplish your goals violently. It's guilt by associative ideology. The Nazis were racist, therefor anyone who holds racist views are Nazis, and wish to act exactly as they did.

Now that is nothing short of hate-mongering, and in light of what I have read this morning, it is AFA who are the real fascists.

pete

Karl Hungus wrote:

Why? Well, I did a little digging for information on Stromfront, and I came up with this, which seems to be the genesis of that meeting. And you know what's interesting about it?

I sure do - what's interesting is that it's got nothing to do with the Celtic Wolves.

What you've linked to is a thread about a proposed, quite general, "look at us, we're all cuddly and reasonable" meeting, and not what was held last saturday (i.e. a Celtic Wolves session).

Incidentally, and from memory, if you read a little further you'll find mention of using the "national meeting" as potentially being a stepping stone to forming "paramilitary" group.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Incidentally, and from memory, if you read a little further you'll find mention of using the "national meeting" as potentially being a stepping stone to forming "paramilitary" group.

Like the AFA?

Seriously, if memory serves correctly the AFA is essentially a reincarnation or splinter of Red Action, which was a little more active in the 1990’s. Both certainly have similar ideologies in Ireland, leaning towards socialism/republicanism - and the latter even has proven links with the IRA, including a conviction for bombing.

Ultimately, regardless of whatever the Celtic Wolves may be up to or claim to be up to, AFA was quite happy to act as judge, jury and executioner to them. You might think they were justified, but that’s just it, you think you were justified. No one here is taking your word for it. No one here accepts you or they have the right to pass such a judgement on anyone; guilty or not.

The whole thing is reminiscent of football hooliganism - tribalistic violence under the auspices of some dubious higher cause. The violence is the end, not the means to these people. And given this bloodlust and an apparently often cavalier definition of what is far right, this would lead me to be concerned about who next they will target as a Nazi.

In the recent Italian elections, there were a number of ex-patriot candidates running, including from the National Alliance party, which was once a Fascist party and still would be considered right wing, although more conservative now. Would the AFA be paying them a visit too?

Zombrex

wikipedia wrote:

AFA maintains that fascism is a major threat to individual freedom, and that the way to defeat it is to confront it physically at every opportunity, denying a public platform to neo-Nazi groups by blocking their marches, disrupting their festivals and conferences, and physically confronting their street-gangs and supporters.

Irony, thy name is AFA.

So the AFA believe the best way to protect individual freedom is to physically trample all over the idea of individual freedom ... gotcha

They clearly don't support freedom, they support people who think and agree with them. That's not freedom. I imagine they only use the words freedom because it makes them sound like the good guys.

Its like the people who agree with "free" speech so long as they approve with what you are saying

pete

Wicknight wrote:

Irony, thy name is AFA.

So the AFA believe the best way to protect individual freedom is to physically trample all over the idea of individual freedom ... gotcha

They clearly don't support freedom, they support people who think and agree with them. That's not freedom. I imagine they only use the words freedom because it makes them sound like the good guys.

Its like the people who agree with "free" speech so long as they approve with what you are saying

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

as an aside, wasn't that what Goebbels or Goerring (or similar - not about to go googling famous Nazi quotes in work!) claimed was the one thing that would have stopped the national socialists in their tracks?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

It would appear you could say the same of Socialism.

fly_agaric

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

The Corinthian wrote:

It would appear you could say the same of Socialism.

And that idea is also used to justify some unsavoury actions committed by the US/UK governments during this "War On Terror".

ChityWest

pete wrote:

ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

And to do this the *super adventure club* (afa) have decided to deny the individual freedoms of those who would deny the individual freedoms of others.

All on the say so of the afa - and if we dont take their word for it then were sympathisers or right wing fascicsts. They decide who is planning on denying the freedoms of others - they decide to deny those same freedoms by their (afa's) actions.

pete wrote:

as an aside, wasn't that what Goebbels or Goerring (or similar - not about to go googling famous Nazi quotes in work!) claimed was the one thing that would have stopped the national socialists in their tracks?

I really think this train of thought is heading for space cadet territory - if an alien took a look at that thread on indymedia they would run for the hills - from reading it a lot of the justifications are based on some nazi world domination conspiracy theory.

There are constant references to wwII - auschwitz etc - from reading it you would think that there is a 5th element on the very brink of taking power in Ireland through some nazi coup - 'hitler 2' in the wings. what total drivel.

The nazi party in ireland very probably have about 15 members if that - they and their fellow travellers are an absolute and total irrelevance and are about as likely to take power as they to win the lottery every week from now to christmas.

Get real - there is no nazi coup in the works. The 'threat' afa claim to percieve is completely out of proportion to the actual threat these people pose in reality - and the scaremongering is simply to try to justify their own thug-violence behaviour.

अधिनायक

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

You need a very clear definition of fascism before you declare religious war on it. Otherwise, you can just suppress all political opinions you disllike and brand them as fascist.

What difference is there between the negative aspects of fascism and say stalinism. So why do you provide a platform for stalinists?

You have presented an assumption that fascism is the most dangerous of ideologies and thus the only ideology banned from indymedia and followed this with another assumption that the best way to suppress this ideology is through censorship and violence.

Your only evidence is a half remembered quote from some Nazi.

All societies contain people who believe in the violent suppression of those who disagree with them. Indymedia is a part of this tradition and no amount of Orwellian 'we have to hit people to set them free' is going to convince people otherwise.

Zombrex

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold

That may be true, but that isn't freedom. That is the oppression and surpression of ideas that are considered dangerous. Surpressing an individuals freedom in the cause of protecting freedom is a bit of a oxymoron.

pete

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

You have presented an assumption that fascism is the most dangerous of ideologies and thus the only ideology banned from indymedia and followed this with another assumption that the best way to suppress this ideology is through censorship and violence.

Your only evidence is a half remembered quote from some Nazi.

All societies contain people who believe in the violent suppression of those who disagree with them. Indymedia is a part of this tradition and no amount of Orwellian 'we have to hit people to set them free' is going to convince people otherwise.

Look I really don't mind if you want to shoot the messenger, but you could at least have the common courtesy to have read the message first.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

That may be true, but that isn't freedom. That is the oppression and surpression of ideas that are considered dangerous. Surpressing an individuals freedom in the cause of protecting freedom is a bit of a oxymoron.

I don't see how one can define freedom as the oppression and suppression of ideas that are considered dangerous.
[edit] Reread wickknights post ignore [/edit]

Suppressing the freedom of a single individual in the name of protecting broader or societal freedom is not oxymoronic. (Even if this 'article' is moronic). It is the rights of the individual against a public good.

Though one wonders who AFA are to determine the public good. To publish people's names and addresses with no attempt at verification is to expose people to harm.

Surely I have the right to be a racist if I choose; who decides who a fascist is anyway, fascism is not necessarily racism and vice versa.

Also why are they boasting about this what if criminal charges followed?

The appeals to the rights of gays and blacks are absurd. Have these Celtic Wolves evre attacked blacks or gays? If so when. Have blacks and gays asked AFA for protection?


On the other hand if these scumbags want to beat each other up that's fine and I suppose that if you are a Nazi you deserve what you get.

But aren't these so called nazis just posturing kids?

so many questions but where are the answers?

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Suppressing the freedom of a single individual in the name of protecting broader or societal freedom is not oxymoronic. (Even if this 'article' is moronic). It is the rights of the individual against a public good.

Well you will notice the "in the cause" bit of my post.

Naturally individual freedom is not limitless within a stable society. For example I'm not free to kill you, or even for that matter come into your house, drink your beer and watch the world cup naked in your bath tub without your permission..

But I think it is better to wait until these so called neo-facists actually try and oppress freedom before they are physically stopped. If they break a law then there is grounds to stop them (for the state to, not the fecking AFA).

The point is the skin-heads should be as free as everyone else Just because we don't agree with how they use this freedom doesn't mean we have the right to stop it.

And you are right, even if all that above is wrong or changes, the AFA is certainly not in any position to decide anything about anything with regard to what is best for society.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Look I really don't mind if you want to shoot the messenger, but you could at least have the common courtesy to have read the message first.

As long are you agree with the message being presented. Otherwise you’re more than happy to suppress it. So please spare us this further hypocrisy.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

As long are you agree with the message being presented. Otherwise you’re more than happy to suppress it. So please spare us this further hypocrisy.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but apart from that minor problem could you please indicate where I have shown any "hypocrisy"?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but apart from that minor problem could you please indicate where I have shown any "hypocrisy"?

You claim that people should have the courtesy to listen to the message, yet no doubt, if the message is not palatable or to your liking, such as any delivered by these Celtic Wolves, you’re quite happy to not to have the courtesy to allow them the opportunity to do the same.

Regardless of what their message is, it betrays a base hypocrisy in your position.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

You claim that people should have the courtesy to listen to the message, yet no doubt, if the message is not palatable or to your liking, such as any delivered by these Celtic Wolves, you’re quite happy to not to have the courtesy to allow them the opportunity to do the same.

Regardless of what their message is, it betrays a base hypocrisy in your position.

And if you'd bothered to actually read what i posted on this thread you'd know that I don't agree with AFA's actions.

edit: as explicitly stated in the following posts

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51498734&postcount=6

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51498979&postcount=13

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51513657&postcount=175

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51513894&postcount=180

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51515102&postcount=189

Apparently i wasn't clear enough.

In my innocence, I actually thought that trying to explain some of the reasoning behind AFA's position might add to the debate. Silly me.

Zombrex

pete wrote:

And if you'd bothered to actually read what i posted on this thread you'd know that I don't agree with AFA's actions.

In my innocence, I actually thought that trying to explain some of the reasoning behind AFA's position might add to the debate. Silly me.

I think TCs point is that IndyMedia probably wouldn't publish a "news" report from the CW that they had manged to violently stop some dangerous socialists from trying to undermine the government by holding a cake sale (or what ever socialists do these days)

I'm not sure what exactly your connection to IndyMedia Ireland is so I don't want to assume you speak for them.

I don't know maybe they would. I have long given up reading IndyMedia since it seems to be little more than a rant board, with no form of editorial jornalistic process. Its not a news source since you can't trust anything on it.