Is the Whole US Military Shannon thing a bit exaggerated

Mazikeen

I was having a chat over a few pints with a mate of mine yesterday evening about the whole US Military Shannon stopover debacle and we both had to concede that that outside of some logistical nuts and bolts and some, naturally, military personnel passing through, there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count) of anything that could really be considered as the traffic there having constituted any serious contribution to the war in Iraq.

If that is the case, why are those planes any different to military planes that land and naval vessels that dock here all the time? I’m not saying that they’re not, only that I’ve seen no credible evidence whatsoever other than the tin-hat-wearing veriety.

AmenToThat

I actually posted a thread on this very topic just recently.
Its not only what we would regard as regular military equipment and personel that are going through Shannon.
The two private jets the Americans use to illegally (no extradition process or trial) transport people to countries for torture and murder regularly stop over in Shannon on their journeys and to me that is a big deal.

DadaKopf

No, because it's actually against Irish law for uniformed personnel, military planes, vehicles and weapons to pass through Irish territory, unless justified on the basis of something like a multilateral UN action. Since the Iraq war has been deemed an illegal war in various courts, the Government is in a tricky position on Ireland's collusion in US foreign policy which involves invading other countries they don't like.

Of course there's evidence for Ireland's role in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The curious timing of military traffic is a tell-tale sign - why else would there be a swell of US military traffic through Shannon? The green planes with military insignia and sightings of fully uniformed and armed US soldiers walking around by protestors are about as clear-cut as you can get. And this didn't happen just once.

What else were they doing there? Going on an trip to Trabolgan?

Mazikeen

And this proof is? Photos? Documents? This is kind of what we were discussing yesterday, that a lot of this is innuendo and conspiracy journalism, and there's very little in the way of proof - direct or even circumstantial.

bonkey

Mazikeen wrote:

there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count) of anything that could really be considered as the traffic there having constituted any serious contribution to the war in Iraq.

What constitutes a serious contribution? Indeed...what contributes contribution at all?

If assisting in the transport of over 100,000 troops (from memory - a number I saw in the Clare Chamion in late Jan / early Feb) doesn't constitute a major contribution, what does?

Also, I believe the US refused to pay some airport charges (from same article), which means that as well as contributing logistical support, our government (who paid the airport in their stead) has directly contributed to the funding the military operations in Iraq (assuming the information I recall reading was correct).

Does any of this constitute contribution? If so, how much further would we have to go before it would constitute serious contribution?

jc

mycroft

Mazikeen wrote:

I was having a chat over a few pints with a mate of mine yesterday evening about the whole US Military Shannon stopover debacle and we both had to concede that that outside of some logistical nuts and bolts and some, naturally, military personnel passing through, there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count)
.

Indymedia is the place where the planespotters who are in shannon documenting the arrivals and departures of US miltary aircraft.

Aprrox 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, we don't know the exact number because our government refused to check or even ask.

And from one of those conpiracy theorists and cranks you claim populate the site.

There is this article.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67865&topic=antiwar&type=feature

And excert of which reads.

It has also come to my notice that N313P, the other aircraft, mentioned in my previous letter, along with a photograph of it, is recorded as having
landed at Shannon this year. This aircraft, which has been tracked to some
of the same locations and military bases as N379P/N8068V should also be
investigated by the Garda Síochána.

You should read carefully the enclosed translation of the Swedish documentary series Kalla Fakta (Cold Facts). They have done a few episodes on this topic.

The translation script was sent to me today by Fredrik Laurin, one of
the researchers for the programme. The English translations are available on the
TV4 website at http://www.tv4.se/kallafakta.

It is also possible to watch these episodes on the internet on the same website.

The most recent broadcast was Monday, 22 November 2004. It interviews Robert
Baer, a former CIA agent who gives us his informed opinion of the activities
surrounding this aircraft. There are also interesting contributions from American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, on the military unit operating the aircraft as well as the researchers from Kalla Fakta
itself. (see highlighted sections on pages 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)

I'm sure it's not beyond your capacity to obtain a copy of the video from Swedish Television, or perhaps the Swedish Police, who probably have a copy of it.

If I manage to get a copy I will forward it to you.

In particular I would like to draw your attention to the following, from page 12 of the translation.

Robert Baer, former CIA agent.

- "There is a rule inside the CIA that if you want a good interrogation and you want good information you send the suspect to Jordan, if you want them to be killed or tortured to death, you send them either to Egypt or
Syria, never see them again"

and on page 5, I would direct you to the paragraph reading :

"January 10th 2002: A man in chains and with a hood over his head is taken
out onto the strictly guarded runway of the Halim airport in central Jakarta. Muhammad Iqbal is taken into custody by disguised men and taken aboard as the plane takes off for Egypt. A few days later the plane N379P
returns from Cairo to the US. According to rumours in the intelligence communities in the west, Iqbal died during interrogations in Egypt"

On page 12, I would direct you to the following quotes from the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

"The CIA does have a fairly large presence in Tashkent... N379P has for the last two years also landed in Uzbekistan on several locations. All in all there have been at least seven trips with the city of Tashkent as the destination"

Mazikeen

mycroft wrote:

Indymedia is the place where the planespotters who are in shannon documenting the arrivals and departures of US miltary aircraft.

Aprrox 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, we don't know the exact number because our government refused to check or even ask.

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not. I'm not saying that it's not correct, only that it does not fit the bill for credible.

As for 100,000 troops - I find it difficult to believe that with such authorative estimates that no one to a snapshot. honestly - wheres the proof?

bonkey

Mazikeen wrote:

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not. I'm not saying that it's not correct, only that it does not fit the bill for credible.

Did you read beyond the bit where indymedia was mentioned? The bit where it turns out that the indymedia article is little more than a reference to a program done by the Swedish?

Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

Man...that's some power....just reference anything from anyone you want to discredit..and bam....they're immediatley untrustworthy because indymedia quote them as a source.

As for 100,000 troops - I find it difficult to believe that with such authorative estimates that no one to a snapshot. honestly - wheres the proof?

I believe the Clare Champion reporter got his/her figures from Shannon Airport, but again...if you really want to find out whether or not it was just a tinfoil-hat-wearer's opinion piece, I'd suggest you contact them directly yourself. I'm sure they'll know who the reporter was, and possibly forward your questions to him/her.

The same article also had a 1/2 page picture of the bar in Shannon airport rather full of people wearing US military outfits. Of course, now I've told you where to find a snapshot, I assmue you'll point out that the snapshot you asked for actually proves nothing (which it doesn't, of course).

jc

mycroft

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not.

And you own the monopoly on the real worlds opinion. Let me break down how the troops through shannon story broke. Indymedia carried, it the Govt at first denied that any troops were moving through shannon. Indymedia then published photos of troops in Shannon. Then the mainstream press picked up on the story.

For starts the 100,000 didn't turn up on day. Troops rarly leave transports, while they're refueling. Occasionally if theres a problem the get out n stretch their legs.

FIGURES released this month by the Dept of Foreign Affairs show that 158,549 US troops passed through Shannon Airport in 2004 (compared to 125,855 in 2003)

Thats dept of foreign affairs estimatess

gandalf

Well do you believe the Irish Independent?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1291021&issue_id=11719

130,000 US military stopped over at Shannon

THE number of US troops passing through Shannon airport for the first 10 months of this year has surpassed the troop numbers going through the airport for the whole of 2003.

As hostilities in Iraq continue, the Department of Foreign Affairs has also confirmed that the number of military aircraft given permission by the Government to overfly Ireland this year is set to reach 3,110 up to the end of October.

The airport yesterday confirmed that 129,103 troops on 1,230 aircraft stopped over at Shannon for the first 10 months of this year.

It is estimated that Shannon airport has secured €15.5m from the US business in 2004.

Fianna Fail senator Timmy Dooley said yesterday that the troops "are a welcome and much-needed business at a time when Shannon is facing certain pressures".

Personally I would suggest that 130,000 troops (and this was is for the first 10 months of 2004) is a very substaintial contribution to the US war effort. Couple this with the fact that no checks are made on any of the US Aircraft that are using Shannon so we do not know they are not transporting weapons (I will try and locate this info as well).

gandalf

Are you comfortable with our facilities being used for transportation to torture maybe.

From the Sunday Business Post
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/09/26/story704656221.asp

Aircraft used for al-Qaeda suspects landed at Shannon
Sunday, September 26, 2004
By Paul T Colgan
A jet chartered by the United States military, which is known to have abducted and transported al-Qaeda suspects, has landed at Shannon Airport several times, The Sunday Business Post has learned.

It is unclear whether the plane, a Citation jet with the call sign N379P, has contained any al-Qaeda suspects when in Ireland.

The jet was spotted at Shannon in 2001. At the end of that year, the plane picked up two al-Qaeda suspects in Sweden and ferried them to Cairo in Egypt for interrogation.

The plane has also landed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Camp X-Ray, run by the US military on one of its bases, houses several hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.

Premier Executive Transport Services, the Massachusetts private charter company, which owns the jet, has an agreement with the US military to land at its facilities around the world, including the Guantanamo Bay base.

The plane is on a permanent charter to the US Department of Defense.

Concerns have been raised that as Shannon Airport is used regularly as a refuelling point for the US military planes, the jet may have landed in the Republic while transferring suspects to Cuba. The plane is normally based at Dulles airport in Washington DC.

Described by the CIA in an article in the Washington Post newspaper as ``extraordinary renditions'', the plane's operations are designed to transfer suspects to countries where they can be interrogated without the protection of Western law.

According to security analysts, the number of ``renditions'' have increased dramatically since the September 11 attacks.

Two Egyptian suspects, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery, were reportedly ``abducted'' from Sweden on N379P in December 2001 by US government officials.

Both men, who had been granted asylum in Sweden, were taken on the Gulfstream jet from Bromma airport, Stockholm, to Cairo where they claimed to have been brutally interrogated.

Agiza and Zery were taken to Bromma by Swedish police in handcuffs and shackles before being handed over to American agents.

On boarding the flight, it was reported in a documentary by Swedish journalist Fredrik Laurin, that they were chained to a harness, blindfolded and hooded.

The two men claimed to Swedish diplomats that they were subject to repeated torture by electrical shocks. Zery was released from custody in October 2003 after the Egyptian authorities failed to uncover any terrorist links.

Agiza was found to be a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in Egypt in April.

The Swedish government has since called for an international investigation to probe the role played by US agents in their apprehension.

It maintains that it received assurances from the US that the two men would not be mistreated.

The plane is believed to have left Shannon Airport on January 18, 2003 - shortly before an anti-war demonstration.

Neither Shannon Airport police nor the gardai investigated the contents of US aircraft passing through the airport despite having the authority to do so.

The jet was also reportedly used to ferry a Yemeni student, Jamil Gasim, in chains from Karachi in Pakistan to Amman in Jordan two months before the Swedish incident.

Legal observers said the abduction and ferrying of terrorist suspects around the world is in breach of international conventions against torture and the European convention on human rights.

Asked earlier this year about the possibility that planes carrying al-Qaeda suspects may be passing through Shannon, justice minister Michael McDowell said: ``[Any] person who is on the soil of Ireland is entitled to the protection of our constitution.

"No person can be brought through the soil of Ireland in the custody of any other state except in accordance with international law.''

McDowell said that he would ``respond immediately'' to any claims that suspects had been transmitted through Irish territory en route to Guantanamo in unlawful custody.

``It would cause me grave concern if I thought people were being smuggled through Irish territory in circumstances that amounted to unlawful detention in Irish law or in international law for that matter,'' he said.

gandalf

Oh and heres a interesting one on the airport charges

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=6232&lang=ENG&loc=1715

Dinner

Oh for Gods sake, they're landing to get fuel, withouyt fuel planes crash and people die. (yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else).

Its doing the Irish people no harm, the more planes that land, the more fuel they buy, the more money for the economy. The only harm that comes to the Irish people as a result of this when crazy people run out onto the tarmac (dangerous and stupid in itself) and batter planes with a hammer.

AmenToThat

Arabel wrote:

Oh for Gods sake, they're landing to get fuel, withouyt fuel planes crash and people die. (yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else)..

Yes but the two none military style jets (although owned bu the CIA) are carrying prisoners who have had no trial and in many cases have been illegally abducted to countries like Syria and Eygpt for torture, murder and prolonged periods of illegal detention.

bonkey

Arabel wrote:

(yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else).

Yes. Thats exactly the point. The biggest ally of the US is right next door, and they could have done the favours. We did not need to get involved, but we chose to.

Victor (I think) posted something up here way back about how in the old days, ships could dock to a very limited extent at neutral ports. Anything more than that extent was considered a breach of neutrality as the port was providing significant material assistance to one participant.

I find it hard to fault that logic. If you choose to help one side to a significant extent, then you forgo any claim to neutrality in the issue.

The Swiss (as I've often pointed out) went so far as to refuse air-space access to war-related flights (typically to/from the US bases in Germany). That is what they considered necessary to preserve their neutrality - again a stance consistent with the maritime situation of old.

Its doing the Irish people no harm, the more planes that land, the more fuel they buy, the more money for the economy.

Nothings better for business then war, eh!

I'm not sure what this line of reasoning has to do with whether or not we gave significant aid, though. It did us no harm???

The only harm that comes to the Irish people as a result of this when crazy people run out onto the tarmac (dangerous and stupid in itself) and batter planes with a hammer.

Surely thats financial loss incurred as opposed to harm, by the standards that you just applied?

jc

Dinner

The woman did us harm because she is making the Irish look like a buch of uncontrolable people. If you want to protest fine, but to commit illegal crime. Any country supporting or against the war isnt going to say thats great, she commited a crime.




I agree there are better circumstances to get money, but right now those are the circumstances. Letting aircraft land is not significant aid, it is just being nice. Significant aid is letting them land, re fuel, re arm and train here.

Whats the differance to a ship docking and probably re fueling and taking on food, and an aircraft landing and re fueling.

Slutmonkey57b

well, god forbid we don't all stay in line and do what we're told. I'm no fan of the hippies, but equally, there's no use pretending to be neutral while letting these levels of troop movements through the country. As has already been said, RAF bases are only a few miles away.

The truth however is probably as simple and mundane as this: the government flogged landing rights in return for post - Sept. 11th airspace cover from RAF and USAF jets.

AmenToThat

Arabel wrote:

I agree there are better circumstances to get money, but right now those are the circumstances. Letting aircraft land is not significant aid, it is just being nice. Significant aid is letting them land, re fuel, re arm and train here.

Whats the differance to a ship docking and probably re fueling and taking on food, and an aircraft landing and re fueling.

Again you seem to be conveniantly forgetting that fact that some of those planes are carry men who are being sent to countries like Egypt and Syria for the purposes of torture and in some cases murder without ever having seen the inside of a court.

true

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

. As has already been said, RAF bases are only a few miles away.

The truth however is probably as simple and mundane as this: the government flogged landing rights in return for post - Sept. 11th airspace cover from RAF and USAF jets.

Good points and well said. In previous conflicts, when the going gets rough, we are always happy to shelter under these countries umbrella ( WW2, the cold war etc ).

We should remember who our friends are in the world. Only 10 or 15 years ago our gratuates were leaving in thousands to get jobs in the USA and UK.
These countries are our economic partners now too. and our nearest neighbours to west and east. Most of our diaspora are in these countries. If there are 40 million people in America of Irish origin, and 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, then it is fair to assume the number of Irish American who passed through goes well in to the five figures. I wonder what do they think of the cead mile failte at Shannon for them ?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

We should remember who our friends are in the world. Only 10 or 15 years ago our gratuates were leaving in thousands to get jobs in the USA and UK.
These countries are our economic partners now too. and our nearest neighbours to west and east. Most of our diaspora are in these countries. If there are 40 million people in America of Irish origin, and 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, then it is fair to assume the number of Irish American who passed through goes well in to the five figures. I wonder what do they think of the cead mile failte at Shannon for them ?

Your basically saying that as long as the economics are right then who cares about the human rights violations.

Nuttzz

ziggy67 wrote:

. When your neutrality is written into the constitution and you still do it (for money!) then that is unforgivable.

but its not..... its merely government policy.

bonkey

true wrote:

We should remember who our friends are in the world.

Yes we should. And we should remember how they (in the case of the US) are treating us with their "with us or against us" logic, and (unless our politicians lied to us) their barely-hidden implications of economic reprecussions should we choose not to support them.

We should remember that as friends and not allies, we would expect them to honour our neutrality rather than ask us to discard it in order to provide assistance that their military allies and partners-in-war who live next door could just as easily have provided

We should, in short, remember that we are supposed to be their friends and not their vassals, and that when they treat us as the latter, we should seriously reconsider what the implication of being the former really means.

jc

Mazikeen

Bonkey:

Did you read beyond the bit where indymedia was mentioned? The bit where it turns out that the indymedia article is little more than a reference to a program done by the Swedish?

It pointed to a Swedish site, not even a specific article. There may be an article there, but I can’t tell cos I don’t speak Swedish.

Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

I’m saying that without seeing proof you’d have to take Indymedia’s word for it and mainstream society won’t. It would take the Swedish documentary series or the indo seriously and maybe even the Clare Champion but not Indymedia. Sorry, but that’s just how things are.

Man...that's some power....just reference anything from anyone you want to discredit..and bam....they're immediatley untrustworthy because indymedia quote them as a source.

I never said they were. Or that your article for the Clare Champion was bogus. Only that from what I have here, it’s not verified. It’s just more stuff some guy on the internet said. To verified that I’d have to find myself a Swedish speaker or phone up the Clare Champion.

mycroft:

And you own the monopoly on the real worlds opinion.

Don’t get so defensive. Indymedia is not viewed as a credible source of information in mainstream Society. It may be in time, but it aint right now. That’s all.

gandalf:

Are you comfortable with our facilities being used for transportation to torture maybe.

No. That’s a horrible thing to say. All I’m asking for is credible proof because it came up in a conversation with a friend the other evening. Why is everyone so defensive?

And thanks for the articles. v good.

RicardoSmith

DadaKopf wrote:

....it's actually against Irish law for uniformed personnel, military planes, vehicles and weapons to pass through Irish territory, unless justified on the basis of something like a multilateral UN action.

Thats all thats important.

D'Peoples Voice

bonkey wrote:

What constitutes a serious contribution? Indeed...what contributes contribution at all?

If assisting in the transport of over 100,000 troops (from memory - a number I saw in the Clare Chamion in late Jan / early Feb) doesn't constitute a major contribution, what does?

Also, I believe the US refused to pay some airport charges (from same article), which means that as well as contributing logistical support, our government (who paid the airport in their stead) has directly contributed to the funding the military operations in Iraq (assuming the information I recall reading was correct).

Does any of this constitute contribution? If so, how much further would we have to go before it would constitute serious contribution?

jc

Were every single one of these 100,000 troops, combat troops?
Lets be honest, nayone who is familar with the ways armies work will know that you will loads of troops whose role is in delaing with logistics, distribution, interpreters,catering troops, medical staff.
I think 100,000 as a number is a bit sensationalist!

Anyway, as regards being accused of giving a contribution,
all we are doing is selling back the oil we got ourselves "probably" from the middle east. So maybe Iraq should take issue with other middle east countries for helping America. We are only the middle man

Occidental

Just for information, yesterdays troop movements at Shannon.

7 flights, 3 eastbound, 4 westbound. Capacity of 1500+. Troop flights have increased heavily since Christmas, when World Airways began using Shannon as a refueling point, with an average of 3-4 flights per day.

The USAF, US Marines and US Navy also transit Shannon on exec flights and on mail/supply duties (but no fighters).

bonkey

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Were every single one of these 100,000 troops, combat troops?

Does it matter? Is the guy responsible for loading the M1A with shells any less of a contributor to the war than the guy inside the M1A who fires them off at the Iraqis?

Lets be honest, nayone who is familar with the ways armies work will know

....that combat troops are only a small part of any invasion force.

However, such people would also know that one does not refer to the combat troops as the active participants in the war, and the support-forces as innocent bystanders who aren't involved. As a result, I would suggest that the distinction you are making is one of convenience rather than of accurate merit.

I think 100,000 as a number is a bit sensationalist!

If you wish to distinguish between active combatant and personnel involved in carrynig out a war, then yes, it is indeed sensationalist.

Such a distinction is somewhat convenient though....given that we're discussing what constitutes significant aid.

Are you saying that the people who load tanks, feed troops etc are not making / did not make a significant contribution to the war effort? Or, if they are, are you saying that there is a distinction between ferrying the troops wot kill people and the troops wot help the other troops kill people when it comes to determining the significance of our involvement?

all we are doing is selling back the oil we got ourselves "probably" from the middle east.

Selling back to who? To the US? How are we selling something back to someone we didn't buy it off in the first place.

Your argument is beginning to sound like one of denial rather than of rationale, methinks - that you feel we didn't give significant aid because you don't want us to have done so, rather than because you can explain solidly that we didn't.

So maybe Iraq should take issue with other middle east countries for helping America. We are only the middle man

Ah right. The good ol' "They're guiltier than we are, so we're not really guilty" line of reasoning. Not too far removed from "He killed more people than me, y'r honour, so I didn't do anything wrong".

Hey, why don't you just conclude that we didn't give any significant aid because we weren't the ones who supplied troops.....and that its the troop-suppliers (but only combat-troops, remember...ancillary staff don't count in your book) who the Iraqis should take issue with.

Nuttzz

Personally I think to say we are neutral is a nonsense, we arent neutral nor have we even been, we gave better treatment to allied airmen who crashed here during WWII than we did to the germans, we have been allowing the US to use shannon as a transit point for troops since the 50's or 60's, the USSR were allowed to use shannon but to a much lesser extent. A better description would be non-alined.

I would like to see the government make a decision one way or the other with regard to military alliances and deployments, we are committed to the EU rapid reaction force yet a UN mandate is required to before we deploy our troops, the idea behind the RRF is not to sit around an talk about it but to act rapidly. So they are keeping both ends happy, the EU is happy because we commit to the RRF and the people here are happy as the UN mandate is required and the government are very happy as they know that there is little chance of a deployment under the triple lock rule. What we need is a public debate on the matter and decide once and for all what to do. I personally dont have a problem with the US using shannon but if the majority of the people opposed it (via a public vote for example) then I wouldnt have a problem with denying them access either.

ionapaul

A public vote on this matter (or a similar situation) would be farcical IMHO and would lead us down the road to mob rule - if we had a vote to reduce income tax, I'm quite sure it would pass, despite the immediate or longterm consequences! We do not live in a perfect democracy, and I for one am happy we do not.

Another point: although in the instance of US military flights through Shannon, although we reaped economic benefits in the short-term, war is not (as commonly believed) good for the macro economy. Certain segments benefit
(particularly on the winning side!), but overall war is terrible for the world economy.

Back to the topic (sort of), I agree with Nuttzz, our neutrality needs to be carefully examined and discussed publicly and in the corridors of power. We are clearly not neutral with regards our dealings with the US, UK and other Western nations. Equally, we (and Switzerland and others) are happy to reap certain benefits due to our relationships with other friendly nations, without contemplating recognised reciprocal actions or arrangements. This all needs to be examined in depth - otherwise we will continue down the path of 'covertly' helping out the US and UK when asked and seeing a growth in public anger, confusion and frustration.

mycroft

Mazikeen wrote:

It pointed to a Swedish site, not even a specific article. There may be an article there, but I can’t tell cos I don’t speak Swedish.


Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

I’m saying that without seeing proof you’d have to take Indymedia’s word for it and mainstream society won’t. It would take the Swedish documentary series or the indo seriously and maybe even the Clare Champion but not Indymedia. Sorry, but that’s just how things are.

How about Vincent Browne's "the village?" They ran an article on the story after Indymedia did.

Don’t get so defensive. Indymedia is not viewed as a credible source of information in mainstream Society. It may be in time, but it aint right now. That’s all.

Thats your opinion. Care to back that up with facts or statistics?