Whats the story with the Irish Anti War Movement?

snollup

Aside from what their website says, what's the story with the Irish Anti-War Movement? Are they genuine, heart in right place, etc..., or is there something more sinister to them?

José Alaninho

What do you mean by 'more sinister'? How are a group of people opposed to illegal wars and the slaughter of thousands of innocent people (mostly for the profits reaped from the 'liberated' country's oil fields) 'sinister'?

The_Minister

It's a front for the SWP.

Scofflaw

A bit of both, really. See here for example:

Now credit should be given where credit is due. The IAWM did invaluable work in mobilising people. They played a central role building a very large antiwar movement. They undertook all those necessary but thankless tasks that make any social movement happen - postering, distributing leaflets, setting up local branches, holding meetings and the like. They called for marches and faithfully shunted their megaphones, placards and banners to the demos. They created a media profile for the anti-war movement and Richard Boyd Barrett in particular made a very good fist of making the anti-war position clear and coherent on the national airwaves. Groups such as writers against the war produced with incredible speed an anthology of writings against the war. Local groups like the Fairview anti-war group, and I'm sure many local groups that I do not know about, excelled themselves in organising anti-war activity in their area. Finally and most importantly, the IAWM can claim with considerable justification to have been the main moving force behind the largest march in Irish history about an international issue. It was an extraordinary day and the IAWM can be proud of their role in making it happen.

...

Why did the leadership of the IAWM do so little with so much support? The answer lies in the politics of the Trotskyist groups that effectively ran the IAWM, namely the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party (who played the more low key role of the two groups). Their approach to politics can be characterised as a peculiar and offputting blend of opportunism and dogmatism. Both of these tendencies are clearly discernible in the direction the IAWM took over the past few months.

The author, of course, is from the Judaean Workers' Solidarity Movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

José Alaninho

Scofflaw wrote: »

A bit of both, really.

Beat me to it! While the SWP/SP play a big part, I'd hardly boil the whole IAWM down to a mere 'front'.

lostexpectation

don't confuse the Irish anti-war movement with the Irish Anti War-Movement.

JonnyBlackrock

Well, I'd say they're pretty sinister. How can anybody claiming to be "anti-war" speak at a pro-Hamas rally? "Anti war" should surely mean "pro peace", but if they were truly pro peace they wouldn't be supporting an organization which fires rockets at towns and villages. Is this not an act of war?
When they say "anti-war" they really mean "anti wars that America (or its allies) happen to be involved in". They've never got a word to say about all the other wars that are unfortunately raging around the world.

José Alaninho

JonnyBlackrock wrote: »

How can anybody claiming to be "anti-war" speak at a pro-Hamas rally?

Hmmm. Haven't heard of this before now.... link?

JonnyBlackrock

Voila - from today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0413/1224244556505.html

Woger

JonnyBlackrock wrote: »

Voila - from today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0413/1224244556505.html

Come on, everyone knows deep down that a Hamas led country would be a liberal paradise to rival Scandanavia where people take responsibility for their own failure and not have to blame infidels, jews and the west.

thebigcheese22

JonnyBlackrock wrote: »

Voila - from today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0413/1224244556505.html

This article doesn't mention the Irish Anti War Movement once.

If you think a Palestinian supporters group is automatically part of the Anti War Movement then it doesn't say a lot for your understanding of the issue IMO.

EDIT:

Apologies, my eyesight aint what it used to be!
Tbh I'm just sick of the attitude which is prevelant here in the Politics forum especially of 'those crazy lefties, supporting terrorism etc'


Back on topic, the IWM used to be an admittedly left wing organisation but one which had admirable aims. This has been hijacked by the radical left, and IMO are now just as bad as the blood-thirsty Zionists. We need a compassionate group, made up of every type of person, to make a point against war, and these idiots are not it.

JonnyBlackrock

Have another look at the story in the Irish Times, and this time read the last four paragraphs.

sceptre

lostexpectation wrote: »

don't confuse the Irish anti-war movement with the Irish Anti War-Movement.

Indeed. Funny the difference a few capital letters can make.

Woger

sceptre wrote: »

Indeed. Funny the difference a few capital letters can make.

Splitters.

turgon

You see the Anti-War movement is really Anti-War-Where-We-Dont-Agree. Peace is just a buzz word these people cause up with a view to get people crawling at their knees with agreement.

thebigcheese22

turgon wrote: »

You see the Anti-War movement is really Anti-War-Where-We-Dont-Agree. Peace is just a buzz word these people cause up with a view to get people crawling at their knees with agreement.

I agree. It really is the height of hypocrisy to march against the war in Iraq (which I abhorred), but not to march against Russia's killing of countless Chechans, or the conflict in Darfur (which I equally abhor). They must be consistent, which they obviously aren't.

lostexpectation

Woger wrote: »

Splitters.

its not splitters it one group(the swp) trying to dominate a concept.

lostexpectation

JonnyBlackrock wrote: »

Well, I'd say they're pretty sinister. How can anybody claiming to be "anti-war" speak at a pro-Hamas rally? "Anti war" should surely mean "pro peace", but if they were truly pro peace they wouldn't be supporting an organization which fires rockets at towns and villages. Is this not an act of war?
When they say "anti-war" they really mean "anti wars that America (or its allies) happen to be involved in". They've never got a word to say about all the other wars that are unfortunately raging around the world.

they're anti-imperialist

thebigcheese22

lostexpectation wrote: »

they're anti-imperialist

So am I, but that surely includes being against Russia's control of Chechnya?

Manic Moran

I'm sure there are one or two actual idealists in there.

NTM

lostexpectation

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

I agree. It really is the height of hypocrisy to march against the war in Iraq (which I abhorred), but not to march against Russia's killing of countless Chechans, or the conflict in Darfur (which I equally abhor). They must be consistent, which they obviously aren't.

the difference is that were not allowing those military through on their way to these invasions,while we are with iraq, iraq is done by the west, by countries we know and associate with the us and uk europe etc, i don't feel personally guilty about what russia is doing in chechnia, i do with iraq becuase of our government grabbing for cash

nesf

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Tbh I'm just sick of the attitude which is prevelant here in the Politics forum especially of 'those crazy lefties, supporting terrorism etc'.

Nah, it's more that certain groups on the left, the SWP being the main culprit, are the supreme opportunists always trying to get behind some popular upwelling of discontent (imagined or real). Labour sometimes fall victim to this tendency but they due to their size and actual support level have much more coherent policy positions in comparison.


Of course on the right we've lovely people like Youth Defence/Cóir. So it's not like it's only the hard left that are a bit dodgy.


From that Irish Times article:

Richard Boyd Barrett of the Irish Anti-War Movement told attendees that it was “entirely legitimate” to argue that “Israel has no right to exist” because “it is not a normal state but a state built on violence, oppression and apartheid”.

Nice...

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

the difference is that were not allowing those military through on their way to these invasions,while we are with iraq, iraq is done by the west, by countries we know and associate with the us and uk europe etc, i don't feel personally guilty about what russia is doing in chechnia, i do with iraq becuase of our government grabbing for cash

Does that make what happens in Iraq worse than what happens in Chechnya?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does that make what happens in Iraq worse than what happens in Chechnya?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nope thats not the question, the questions was thebigcheese22's tired cliche about anti-war movement being hypocritical, a point thats only made by people who don't give **** about our provision of shannon to the us military to invade and occupy iraq, there lots of those people around here.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

nope thats not the question, the questions was thebigcheese22's tired cliche about anti-war movement being hypocritical, a point thats only made by people who don't give **** about our provision of shannon to the us military to invade and occupy iraq, there lots of those people around here.

Or alternatively by people who don't see that as the sole issue of concern. I asked because here's bigcheese22's point:

I agree. It really is the height of hypocrisy to march against the war in Iraq (which I abhorred), but not to march against Russia's killing of countless Chechans, or the conflict in Darfur (which I equally abhor). They must be consistent, which they obviously aren't.

Here's your response:

the difference is that were not allowing those military through on their way to these invasions,while we are with iraq, iraq is done by the west, by countries we know and associate with the us and uk europe etc, i don't feel personally guilty about what russia is doing in chechnia, i do with iraq becuase of our government grabbing for cash

What I've asked is why that's a "difference", exactly? Different because you feel personally guilty?

Let me be clear - I oppose both. I have no problem with Shannon simply being closed as a trans-shipment point for troops (anybody's), but I don't see it as a different issue simply because "we" are "involved". Our complicity, passive in both cases, is morally identical. Outside of direct action, our protests are of symbolic/PR value only, and not directly effective - therefore one cannot distinguish between a protest against Shannon and a protest against Chechnya. Indeed, a protest in a foreign country is often more effective than domestic protest - our government has long since taken the temperature of the Shannon issue, and knows that it can safely ignore it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

I still don't see how that doesn't count against the concept of their being 'anti-the-wars we don't like.'

A true pacifist, even if they restrict themselves solely to things which directly involve Ireland (Making them pragmatic idealists, I guess) would object to Ireland sending troops anywhere as well. The Army did not bring guns and armoured vehicles to Chad and Liberia just to spread goodwill.

NTM

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

I still don't see how that doesn't count against the concept of their being 'anti-the-wars we don't like.'

A true pacifist, even if they restrict themselves solely to things which directly involve Ireland (Making them pragmatic idealists, I guess) would object to Ireland sending troops anywhere as well. The Army did not bring guns and armoured vehicles to Chad and Liberia just to spread goodwill.

NTM

I have to say that while I'm opposed to war, I am also opposed to that kind of idealistic pacifism. If people somewhere require aid, not because of natural disaster, but because of war, then in order to provide aid, we will also have to provide soldiers, and those soldiers will have to be at liberty to defend themselves, the aid, and the people they are aiding. I prefer that the force levels devoted to such protection be sufficient in themselves to deter any thought of attack, but that is unusual. The idea that our hands would be cleaner by not providing aid under those circumstances I consider utterly repellent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRISH RAIL

Richard Boyd Barrett of the Irish Anti-War Movement told attendees that it was “entirely legitimate” to argue that “Israel has no right to exist” because “it is not a normal state but a state built on violence, oppression and apartheid”.

theres a lot that I could say abut this guy and a lot peole I could compare him to but ill leave that for another day.

but wasnt Ireland built on something similar Mr Barret perhaps you have great plans for here after.....

lostexpectation

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or alternatively by people who don't see that as the sole issue of concern. I asked because here's bigcheese22's point:



Here's your response:



What I've asked is why that's a "difference", exactly? Different because you feel personally guilty?

the difference is our country is involved thats what i was saying.

Let me be clear - I oppose both. I have no problem with Shannon simply being closed as a trans-shipment point for troops (anybody's), but I don't see it as a different issue simply because "we" are "involved". Our complicity, passive in both cases, is morally identical. Outside of direct action, our protests are of symbolic/PR value only, and not directly effective - therefore one cannot distinguish between a protest against Shannon and a protest against Chechnya. Indeed, a protest in a foreign country is often more effective than domestic protest - our government has long since taken the temperature of the Shannon issue, and knows that it can safely ignore it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

huh passive? we're actively involved to an extent,when you compare it to chechnya, we are, how are we involved in chechnya, i'd love to know, where are the russian troops going through shannon on their way to chechnya?

im still sensing you don't _really_ give a **** about shannon

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote: »

I still don't see how that doesn't count against the concept of their being 'anti-the-wars we don't like.'

A true pacifist, even if they restrict themselves solely to things which directly involve Ireland (Making them pragmatic idealists, I guess) would object to Ireland sending troops anywhere as well. The Army did not bring guns and armoured vehicles to Chad and Liberia just to spread goodwill.

NTM

who said they're pacifist? you're making up your own rules to apply them to the the irish anti war movement.

The Saint

Boyd Barrett is a self promoting twat. What sort of idiot goes to a rally like that and says idiotic things like that. If he wants the IAWM to be taken any way seriously he should leave the organization.