Idiots protesting outside Easons...

PomBear

Hyperbullet wrote: »

There's better ways of getting your point across than roaring into a megaphone at people who are a few feet away surely? If you're going into the shop and someone's blaring a megaphone while others are putting pamphlets in front of you it just looks and feels extremely aggressive. But that's just my opinion.

Nobody claimed to be shouted at with a microphone, and hardly an excuse for such blatant attack by many posters here. Putting pamphlets in front of you? hardly aggressive now is it. I think some people need to get over themselves.

Their fairly recent spiel about the Galway airshow is a fine example. I cant find a copy of their statement ( If I can I'll stick it on here) but it was silly and poorly written. Came across as a bunch of killjoys.

The same reasons for the Tony Blair protests, it's a worthy cause if any, one can be ignorant to what the red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan but if one is open to this, you might feel completely different.

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

one can be ignorant to what the red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan but if one is open to this, you might feel completely different.

What are you wittering on about.
I suppose the Cadburys wing walkers carried out a display over Baghdad as well did they?

Rabble Rabble

Can someone answer a question? Were there any protests by the anti-imperialist left of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Rabble Rabble

mikom wrote: »

What are you wittering on about.
I suppose the Cadburys wing walkers carried out a display over Baghdad as well did they?

They buzzed the Taleban.

War crime.

galwayrush

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Can someone answer a question? Were there any protests by the anti-imperialist left of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Only conflicts that involve the UK, U.S.A. and Israel seem to count.:rolleyes:

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

What are you wittering on about.
I suppose the Cadburys wing walkers carried out a display over Baghdad as well did they?

Red Arrows represent a force which has murdered 130,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can choose to ignore that if they please but I feel the GAAW showing some sort of opposition to give the forces a rousing reception here.
Cadburys wing walkers?? no idea what you're wittering about either.

McDougal

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Can someone answer a question? Were there any protests by the anti-imperialist left of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I have no idea. Anyway didn't the Afghan government at the time invite the Soviets in to deal with the religious fundamentalists undermining the state? It wasn't an invasion.

McDougal

galwayrush wrote: »

Only conflicts that involve the UK, U.S.A. and Israel seem to count.:rolleyes:

Probably something to do with those states invading and attacking other states.

galwayrush

McDougal wrote: »

Probably something to do with those states invading and attacking other states.

So, where were the GAAW when Sadam invaded Kuwait?

McDougal

galwayrush wrote: »

So, where were the GAAW when Sadam invaded Kuwait?

As far as I'm aware GAAW was only formed as the US prepared to to invade Iraq on the basis of what were blatant lies

galwayrush

McDougal wrote: »

As far as I'm aware GAAW was only formed as the US prepared to to invade Iraq on the basis of what were blatant lies

Sadam was an evil despot, or maybe that was a blatant lie as well.:rolleyes:

bytey

WIll Rick Wakeman be there ?
im a big fan

Memnoch

The logic people resort to in order to justify their vitriol never ceases to amaze me.

People are slating the protesters for not protesting other things? Do you guys realise how ridiculous that sounds?

There are a LOT of problems in the world. It's practically impossible for an individual to do something for every one of them, but in the eyes of some people here unless you protest about EVERYTHING that you think is wrong with the world you're a hypocrite, or as some here have tried to label them - a racist!?!?

So now people who protest against NAMA are assholes because they aren't protesting the Iraq war. And people who protest the Iraq war are assholes because they aren't protesting US missile strikes in Pakistan and people who protest against missile strikes in Pakistan are assholes because they won't protest for equal rights for fathers and people who protest for equal rights for fathers are assholes because they won't campaign for Breast cancer...

I mean we have this idea on boards, attack the argument not the poster, or the person making the argument.

Yet FEW if ANY of the posts in this thread are addressing the central issue, i.e. Eason's inviting Tony Blair here to promote his book, instead they resort to slandering and abusing the protesters and then when someone comes back and calls them names they have the brilliant cheek to talk about attacking the argument?

*shakes head sadly*

McDougal

galwayrush wrote: »

Sadam was an evil despot, or maybe that was a blatant lie as well.:rolleyes:

That may well be but 1 million people would still be alive if the US and Britain didn't invade Iraq. And the people in Iraq are not any better off today, they are worse off so I don't understand your argument.

Dick Cheney is evil but I still don't believe the world would necessarily be better off if he was hung.

vulcan57

PomBear wrote: »

Red Arrows represent a force which has murdered 130,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can choose to ignore that if they please but I feel the GAAW showing some sort of opposition to give the forces a rousing reception here.
Cadburys wing walkers?? no idea what you're wittering about either.

The Red Arrows represent the RAF and they have not murdered 130,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority of deaths are from their own people or those pretending to be acting on their behalf by blowing innocent civilians to pieces in suicide bombings. But, using your words, "One can choose to ignore that if they please" what about the 30 odd thousand that were murdered in the attack on the twin towers or those murdered on the attacks on the London underground, that doesn't come into it maybe, but yet again using your own words "One can choose to ignore that if they please"

vulcan57

McDougal wrote: »

Probably something to do with those states invading and attacking other states.

Like the Iraqi's have done on several occasions.

majiktripp

vulcan57 wrote: »

what about the 30 odd thousand that were murdered in the attack on the twin towers or those murdered on the attacks on the London underground, "

30,000?! Officially 2,995 in the Twin Towers and 55 in the London bombings I thought...

galwayrush

vulcan57 wrote: »

Like the Iraqi's have done on several occasions.

....and would still be doing if Sadam was not stopped.

Memnoch

galwayrush wrote: »

....and would still be doing if Sadam was not stopped.

This is a joke right? The US put Saddam in power, encouraged him to invade Iran and indeed provided him with logistical support and were laughing happily when he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people.

They also had no problem giving hundreds of millions in aid to pakistan, an Islamic Nuclear armed state run by a dictator for years.

Or what about the Coup to remove the democratically elected leader of Iran when he was about to stop BP from pillaging the countries resources?

Yes, of course the USA are all about promoting democracy and freedom and they had to get rid of him for that and that alone.

vulcan57

majiktripp wrote: »

30,000?! Officially 2,995 in the Twin Towers and 55 in the London bombings I thought...

I stand correct, too eager on the zero's, my point still stands though.

galwayrush

Memnoch wrote: »

This is a joke right? The US put Saddam in power, encouraged him to invade Iran and indeed provided him with logistical support and were laughing happily when he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people.

They also had no problem giving BILLIONS in aid to pakistan, an Islamic Nuclear armed state run by a dictator for years.

Or what about the Coup to remove the democratically elected leader of Iran when he was about to stop BP from pillaging the countries resources?

Yes, of course the USA are all about promoting democracy and freedom and they had to get rid of him for that and that alone.

Have you erased the invasion of Kuwait from memory? or the fact that during the first Gulf War he ( Sadam_) started firing rockets into Israeli terrority to try and draw them into a conflict thus hoping for other Arab states to join in? No Joke.:rolleyes:

Memnoch

vulcan57 wrote: »

I stand correct, too eager on the zero's, my point still stands though.

Your point does not stand because the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on the twin towers. Saddam/Iraq had no involvement with it or with Al Queda.

Memnoch

galwayrush wrote: »

Have you erased the invasion of Kuwait from memory? or the fact that during the first Gulf War he started firing rockets into Israeli terrority to try and draw them into a conflict thus hoping for other Arab states to join in? No Joke.:rolleyes:

Oh Saddam was a terrible dictator and pure evil. But you're implication that the US were removing him was a great and benevolent act and justified falls apart in the face of their OWN support for him and the manner in which Saddam gained power and their actions in other places around the world.

The fact is, the only reason Saddam was able to do all that he did was THANKS to the US helping him to power in the first place thanks to their policy of regime change when they don't like the leadership of a country that they want something from.

outwest

isnt this thread obout a group of poeple protesting over tony blair book,

the gaaw annoys me, the protest at eason was idiotic, as for the red arrows, i enjoyed them at the volvo rave, there entertaining

Memnoch

outwest wrote: »

isnt this thread obout a group of poeple protesting over tony blair book,

the gaaw annoys me, the protest at eason was idiotic, as for the red arrows, i enjoyed them at the volvo rave, there entertaining

Absolutely, the entire thread is attacking the PEOPLE(poster) rather than the arguement they are making.

ie. that people are unhappy about Easons bringing Tony Blair over to peddle his propaganda.

Pfft.

Everyone knows Dubrays is better. Or is it Dubrarys?

PomBear

vulcan57 wrote: »

The Red Arrows represent the RAF and they have not murdered 130,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority of deaths are from their own people or those pretending to be acting on their behalf by blowing innocent civilians to pieces in suicide bombings. But, using your words, "One can choose to ignore that if they please" what about the 30 odd thousand that were murdered in the attack on the twin towers or those murdered on the attacks on the London underground, that doesn't come into it maybe, but yet again using your own words "One can choose to ignore that if they please"

30,000?? it's closer to 3,000 bud.

Also I think you need to look up the definition of civilian.

Also the RAF served in Iraq and Afghanistan, do yes their campaign is just imo.

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

to what the red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan but if one is open to this, you might feel completely different.

mikom wrote: »

What are you wittering on about.
I suppose the Cadburys wing walkers carried out a display over Baghdad as well did they?

PomBear wrote: »

Red Arrows represent a force which has murdered 130,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can choose to ignore that if they please but I feel the GAAW showing some sort of opposition to give the forces a rousing reception here.
Cadburys wing walkers?? no idea what you're wittering about either.

The red arrows are a display team, as are the Cadburys wing walkers.
Were the red arrows used in Iraq and Afghanistan as you posted initially?
I don't believe they were.
Unless of course if they were trying to appease ould Saddam by creating a smoke-trail heart in the sky.......

?Cee?view

There's a lot of sanctimonious nonsense being spouted here. Attack the post, not the poster etc.

The fact is that a lot of the signatories of that letter are the same people who have been "protesting" in Galway for over thirty years, quite happy to be supported by the State while doing so. People are quite entitled to be sick and tired of listening to them and their latest crusades. Whether or not one agrees with the Blair witchprojecthunt, it's fully understandable that most Galway people are sick of listening to these same whingers for decades.

Very disappointing to see Lelia Doolin associating herself with them by signing that letter.

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

The red arrows are a display team, as are the Cadburys wing walkers.
Were the red arrows used in Iraq and Afghanistan as you posted initially?
I don't believe they were.
Unless of course if they were trying to appease ould Saddam by creating a smoke-trail heart in the sky.......

Red Arrows are a branch of the RAF, the RAF bombed and murdered civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan

The Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team were being used in Iraq and Afghanistan

So this is incorrect so?

PomBear

churchview wrote: »

There's a lot of sanctimonious nonsense being spouted here. Attack the post, not the poster etc.
The fact is that a lot of the signatories of that letter are the same people who have been "protesting" in Galway for over thirty years, quite happy to be supported by the State while doing so.

Can you prove your accusation here? If not, I suggest you keep suggestive derogatory comments to yourself.

People are quite entitled to be sick and tired of listening to them and their latest crusades. Whether or not one agrees with the Blair witchprojecthunt, it's fully understandable that most Galway people are sick of listening to these same whingers for decades.

What gives them the right? These people have the right to association upheld by the European Convention of Human Rights.
13 pages on there is not one solitary reason to be annoyed with this group. The only people I see 'whinging' are posters in this thread.

Very disappointing to see Lelia Doolin associating herself with them by signing that letter.

I for one commend her by having a voice on a very pressing issue

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

The Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team were being used in Iraq and Afghanistan

So this is incorrect so?

Are you really going to focus on a typo to disprove GAAW's campaign?

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

Are you really going to focus on a typo to disprove GAAW's campaign?

Is that what I am doing?
Oh, and it's a pretty big typo, as they usually consist of just a slip of the finger

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

Is that what I am doing?
Oh, and it's a pretty big typo, as they usually consist of just a slip of the finger

Arguing over typo's, the last tirade of a losing argument in an internet forum

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

Arguing over typo's, the last tirade of a losing argument in an internet forum

Who's losing?

?Cee?view

PomBear wrote: »

Can you prove your accusation here? If not, I suggest you keep suggestive derogatory comments to yourself.

Guess what. I don't have to and frankly I couldn't be bothered. I will say that I know at least three of the signatories personally and I know for a fact that they have gladly taken various grants for their various "works". And please don't bother asking me for more details just so my refusal to provide them can be counted as a little internet argument victory. Actually, scratch that, count it as such a victory for all I care;)

PomBear wrote: »

What gives them the right? These people have the right to association upheld by the European Convention of Human Rights.
13 pages on there is not one solitary reason to be annoyed with this group. The only people I see 'whinging' are posters in this thread.

And does that same Convention give someone the right to be annoyed by other people whose only really success is in being irritating:rolleyes: I, and others, am irritated by having to listen to some of them for over 30 years, not just by this "protest".

PomBear wrote: »

I for one commend her by having a voice on a very pressing issue

I don't disagree that she's commendable for having a voice on this issue. What I regret is her associating herself with ineffectual professional moaners.

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

Who's losing?

You tell me......;)

PomBear

churchview wrote: »

Guess what. I don't have to and frankly I couldn't be bothered. I will say that I know at least three of the signatories personally and I know for a fact that they have gladly taken various grants for their various "works". And please don't bother asking me for more details just so my refusal to provide them can be counted as a little internet argument victory. Actually, scratch that, count it as such a victory for all I care;)

I don't count it as a victory, i'm just disappointed people still spout this crap

And does that same Convention give someone the right to be annoyed by other people whose only really success is in being irritating I, and others, am irritated by having to listen to some of them for over 30 years, not just by this "protest".

I have a bit of advice for you, could come in handy if you take it on board. Next time you see an article by them in the paper, don't read the article. See them on the street, walk past. See them on telly, switch the channel. Crazy idea I know...

I don't disagree that she's commendable for having a voice on this issue. What I regret is her associating herself with ineffectual professional moaners.

I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

K_user

McDougal wrote: »

You are only laughing at your own ignorance

Good man - when in doubt resort to insults...

As I said before, not that you answered, you are supporting the rights for people to protest but denying the right for people to protest the protesters.

And while you celebrate the rights of the individual to be able to protest, which is protected by our laws, when those laws don't suit your belief you accuse others of crimes randomly, directly insulting those that don't agree with you.

You accuse people of propaganda, yet are quite happy to share your own.

While I found your last comments funny, I now find myself a little bit bored.

darrenh

Tony Blair is a f**ing legend. IMO he has done a lot for the world. He brought the Provo's and unionists to peace. In my world this is all that matters.
I hate GAAW. I couldnt fight an argument to save my life. People who fight for minorities (in their eyes) are the best at arguments. The build up a fact base of info on who they defend and know sweet f-all on everyone else. Right now I'm drunk, but this all makes sense to me. Thank me if you want GAAW OUT!!!!!!!

Hyperbullet

PomBear wrote: »

Nobody claimed to be shouted at with a microphone, and hardly an excuse for such blatant attack by many posters here. Putting pamphlets in front of you? hardly aggressive now is it. I think some people need to get over themselves.

Its a megaphone, not a microphone. Two very very different things. If a megaphone is blaring 2 feet away from you as you walk into a shop and at the same time someone shoves a pamphlet in your direction how is that act not aggressive? And you still have not addressed the issue of why the GAAW do not have any sort of public support. Do some research maybe? Plenty of other legitimate groups out there who need active support. If you'd like a list, pm me.



The same reasons for the Tony Blair protests, it's a worthy cause if any, one can be ignorant to what the red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan but if one is open to this, you might feel completely different.

The Red Arrows were never used in Iraq/Afghanistan. And here you are posting about ignorance.

PomBear wrote: »

I don't count it as a victory, i'm just disappointed people still spout this crap




I have a bit of advice for you, could come in handy if you take it on board. Next time you see an article by them in the paper, don't read the article. See them on the street, walk past. See them on telly, switch the channel. Crazy idea I know...


I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

No, the GAAW members are too busy organising ineffective forms of protest that do nothing but tarnish any chance they have of become a legitimate voice of people who wish to speak out against war, or any other aspect of conflict. They are a joke, a poorly led group of misinformed individuals who have achieved NOTHING. You post here branding all of us as ignorant but how much do you know about this group? Do some research before you align yourself with a bunch of cowboys.

And for the record, I'm not a supporter of Tony Blair. I'm against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the evidence given to us, the docile masses, was false and in some cases, fabricated. History will judge G.W. Bush and Tony Blair (and the respective governments) for their actions.

However you can be damn sure I will never support the GAAW and their forms of "protest". Its posts like yours and McDougals that give the left a poor name and make any open minded person feel your argument is a joke, when all you can spout is the word "ignorant" over and over and throw insults at anyone that disputes your view. Its no wonder that so many protests fail with people of your mindset on board. Hypocrites.

EuskalHerria

This thread is an absolute barrel of laughs. Perspective is a funny thing.

Tony Blair, the man who was responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanastani civilians, thousands of soldiers and sending young men and women to die, in an illegal war that was so transparantly about oil that even stevie wonder could see it.
Easons are going to facilitate this man, who had a major responsibility and folded under pressure from America, to help him gain financially. There are people who are opposed to this completely messed up idea that a man responsible for all this, be able to sell and profit from his biography. A reality check is needed, this isn't a typical famous author coming along to sell his or her novel, this is a man who if it was a country that wasn't a super power would be wanted in the Hague.

Then people decided to have a go at peaceful protesters who are opposed to this, and it also angers certain people? Theres some twisted logic, but I can't for the life of me see it.

Hyperbullet

EuskalHerria wrote: »

This thread is an absolute barrel of laughs. Perspective is a funny thing.

Tony Blair, the man who was responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanastani civilians, thousands of soldiers and sending young men and women to die, in an illegal war that was so transparantly about oil that even stevie wonder could see it.
Easons are going to facilitate this man, who had a major responsibility and folded under pressure from America, to help him gain financially. There are people who are opposed to this completely messed up idea that a man responsible for all this, be able to sell and profit from his biography. A reality check is needed, this isn't a typical famous author coming along to sell his or her novel, this is a man who if it was a country that wasn't a super power would be wanted in the Hague.

Then people decided to have a go at peaceful protesters who are opposed to this, and it also angers certain people? Theres some twisted logic, but I can't for the life of me see it.

Perspective is a funny thing.

I agree with a good bit of what you've posted, however if you actually think that the GAAW are a legitimate protest group, that's where the perspective differs.

EuskalHerria

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Perspective is a funny thing.

I agree with a good bit of what you've posted, however if you actually think that the GAAW are a legitimate protest group, that's where the perspective differs.

There seems to be a lot of vague negativity posted about Gaaw. Often I read it on here and ignore it as it just ridiculous, and sometimes borderline obsession. Can someone constructively explain without necessarily attacking Gaaw, what the problem with the group is?

I assume that most people on here are not cheerleaders for war, so what is it that people don't like about an anti war movement?

PomBear

Hyperbullet wrote: »

No, the GAAW members are too busy organising ineffective forms of protest that do nothing but tarnish any chance they have of become a legitimate voice of people who wish to speak out against war, or any other aspect of conflict. They are a joke, a poorly led group of misinformed individuals who have achieved NOTHING. You post here branding all of us as ignorant but how much do you know about this group? Do some research before you align yourself with a bunch of cowboys.

What other group is active solely on anti-war issues in Galway? Not one. If you want to question their legitimacy, what makes them illegitimate? As I see them, they're active on their issues with campaigns that have to be respected imo and fair dues to them. You can't call them illegitimate and make claims about them knowing nothing without something to back it up.

And for the record, I'm not a supporter of Tony Blair. I'm against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the evidence given to us, the docile masses, was false and in some cases, fabricated. History will judge G.W. Bush and Tony Blair (and the respective governments) for their actions.

It'll be a long time before that happens imo

However you can be damn sure I will never support the GAAW and their forms of "protest". Its posts like yours and McDougals that give the left a poor name and make any open minded person feel your argument is a joke, when all you can spout is the word "ignorant" over and over and throw insults at anyone that disputes your view. Its no wonder that so many protests fail with people of your mindset on board. Hypocrites.

I haven't thrown insults at anyone in this thread. When I used the word ignorant, it was to describe people who ignore what GAAW are really protesting against and then to ridicule them with the colourful selection of insults you and me have seen in this thread.
I feel people aren't really in a place to ridicule when they are oblivious to what GAAWs cause is.
I also feel I have the right to tell people this as they have no problem ridiculing the GAAW.
I don't really understand how that makes me a hypocrite.

vulcan57

Memnoch wrote: »

Your point does not stand because the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on the twin towers. Saddam/Iraq had no involvement with it or with Al Queda.

I'm sorry my friend, but point does stand. the post I was replying to was to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

po0k

darrenh wrote: »

Tony Blair a war criminal! The same Tony who helped bring about peace in Ireland for the first time in centuries?

Saddam Hussein was an evil bollix. Blair and Bush just f**ked up the way they took him out of power. They had no after plan.

Do you really honestly think that Blair is evil???!!!!

Next year ye'll want Macnus shut down for using paper aeroplanes in its parade or something stupid like that. Is it not ye who have taken the airshow away from us? GAAW does not represent Galway and should not be allowed use its name. Get a life and help some charities if you want to do some good.

Read more widely.
Whitey be treacherous yo.

PomBear

vulcan57 wrote: »

I'm sorry my friend, but point does stand. the post I was replying to was to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

What do the twin towers have to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan or for that matter Tony Blair?

?Cee?view

PomBear wrote: »

I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

Should have gone to Specsavers