32 County Sovereignty Movement Condemns Israeli Assassination.

by gobsmacked Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:04

And can this be the same soveriegnty committee that bombed Omagh???? they have a cheek protesting about anybody assassinating anybody.

by Curious Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:09

You believe States have the right to commit International Terrorism and executive people with out trial whenever they wish?

by 32 County Sovereignty Movement = Vermin Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:27

Who cares what the 32 County Sovereignty Movement have to say?

by Leon (Anarchist Drivers Federation) Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:30

The Israelis didn't kill enough innocent people.

BTW an editor should delete this article on a no platform basis.

by Jim Lynagh Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:31

....now these child killing scum want to protest!!! Or is it that they want to "align" themselves with Hamas?

Go and crawl back under the stinking scum filled rock you crawled out of you bunch of Facist misfits.

by Curious Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:55

I see you take the name of someone who was never afraid to go out and fight the British Army. What is your position on the murder of Palestinian children by the Israelis?

by G. H. Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:57

It does not contravene any of the guidelines, including the no platform one. There is no evidence that they are nazis.

by Leon (ADF) Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:59

What's your position on the murder of Irish children by these fascist scum?

No name at all?

You're as brave as the black bloc.

by Curious Wed Sep 29, 2004 17:03

I condemn the Omagh bombing unreservedly. I dont believe that there is an Anarchist Drivers Federation so I think you are rather anonymous as well. I dont see what the Black Bloc has to do with this or why you should think I am a member.

by Robert Wed Sep 29, 2004 17:12

How is it that when anyone criticises the Israeli state they are set upon and described as fascists or holocaust deniers? The same argument is always used in a kneejerk way against anyone on the left who supports the Palistinians. Most of us here would disagree with the sovereignity movement about the northern question but I never heard them deny the holocaust.

by pat c Wed Sep 29, 2004 17:13

The 32 CSM is not a Fascist organisation and it is not the RIRA. It is apolitical organisation which shouldnt be demonised any more than RSF. Blurring the line between political and military wings led in the past to the killing of SF members. From that it is only a short step to calling lawyers like Pat Finucane terrorist fellow travellers.

Where does this stop? Is any journalist who doesnt attack them then also a fellow traveller? Well, thats what happens in many countries. If you dont condemn the "terrorists" strongly enough then you will face death at the hands of the State murder gangs.

I have no time for RSF, 32 CSM, CIRA or RIRA. I think RIRA & CIRA are engaged in a futile campaign which will result in the deaths of more innocent people. The lives of young people who get involved with them will be destroyed. They must realise that they have no Community support. How much longer will this futile campaign continue.

But, the 32 CSM is a political organisation and is just as entitled as anyother to issue the statement above.

by 1**Afternoon Wed Sep 29, 2004 19:37

there is a hierarchy of involvement between political/military groups

sinn fein/ira now constitute seperate groups with minimal crossover

rsf/cira are intrinsically linked at all levels up to Ac level

but the worst is 32csm/rira who are one and the same thing.



nice to see theyve crawled out from under their stone though.......

by John Wed Sep 29, 2004 20:51

Please remove this article.

Contributions from the likes of the above only serve to damage public perception of Indymedia to the point where legitimate contributions credibility is damaged when seen to be posting on a site alongside the above.

We all are quite well aware of the people involved in the 32CSC and their background. The above article represents such a universe-beating level of hyprocricy I'm surpirsed the writer didn't evaporate after publishing it.

by postmanpat Wed Sep 29, 2004 22:13 ppt at rai dot ie

No, I don't think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3699224.stm

by Noel Wed Sep 29, 2004 22:38

Postman Pat,

Don't worry, before long the usual anti-Israel suspects will come with their what-aboutisms.

Any minute now..
3..2..1....

by Mike Novack Wed Sep 29, 2004 22:43

Isn't it making a rather big assumption to conclude that it was the Israelis who did this assassination? Maybe they did, but.............

The offical comment from the Israelis has been ambivalent. Keep in mind that they have been saying "we reserve the right to go after them this way" and so wouldn't want to word a denial of this assassination in such a way as to possibly be interpreted as a policy change giving up assassinations. You would think they would claim a coup like this, yes? If they could. But they didn't. Why not?

The Syrian comment switched from an initial blaming of the Israelis directly to an indirect blaming of the Israelis via "Arab traitors". Unclear what THAT means. Whether that means they believe done by Arabs working for the Israelis OR ones who by their fight with Hammas serve Israel's interests (although their motives are entirely their own).

by anonymous due to danger of reprisal. Thu Sep 30, 2004 02:33

Pat you described these people as a political
organisation.

excerpt from the constitution of the organisation:

3.(c) The 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not a political party, therefore will not contest elections.

I think that this makes it clear that this is not a political organisation.

The only realistic function of these people is as apologists for R.I.R.A. They list R.I.R.A prisoners as pow's on their website and also include photos depicting the armed R.I.R.A. in military uniform.It is no coincidence that the leader of one organisation is married to the leader of the other.

It is offensive that these people who butchered innocent men, women and children in the womb on a saturday afternoon in Omagh and who support the Chechen murderers of children issue statements in condemnation of anyone. It is even more offensive that they are afforded legitimacy by any section of the media in this country.

What the Omagh victims view is:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,11008,610415,00.html


What about Russian Children? it's ok to massacre them it seems,
32CSM support of chechen child murderers!
http://www.32csm.netfirms.com/chechnya.html

by slaughtered baby Thu Sep 30, 2004 02:44

Are you people for real? it seems you are ,you are for real ira. The publishing of their utterances amounts to support of terrorists.

No omagh people on the editorial staff, no russians either i'd say.

Watch out for low flying aircraft upm there in the clouds.

Thay redstuff on your hands......yeah it's the blood of the innocents.............................................................................................................................................................one word...................................discredited,

when is the next face to face meeting?

expect a picket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by pat c Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:14

It may not be a political party but it is a political group, it engages in political activity. There is no point in either you or the 32csm engaging in semantics over this. Please note that I in no way support either the 32 CSM or RIRA or RSF or CIRA. I would have thought that was clear from what I wrote above.

My point is that the demonisation of 32 CSM blurs the difference between political and paramilitary organisations. This leads to a situation wherby it becomes "acceptable" to kill political activists. This is what happened to SF members. From there it was a short step to the killing of lawyers like Pat Finucane.

Where does this stop? In other countries this has led on to a situation where anyone who stands up against State abuses is called a terrorist. Lawyers, Human Rights defenders, Journalists are all slaughtered.

I am pointing out that you are on a very slippery slope.

by John Thu Sep 30, 2004 14:25

No you are not on a slippery slope.

It's very straightforward. In the interests of maintaining the quality of the site in general and restricting the access of murderous scumbags to air their views when so doing alongside legitimate commentary serves to weaken the credibility of the site in general.

The likes of the 32CSC are being indulged here. It's complete garbage, written by moronic armchair republicans that's both irrelavant and offensive.

I would ask again for this article to be removed, on the grounds that it could cause serious offense to victims of the RIRA.

My earlier suggestion that its continued existance makes a mockery of the the site in general seems to have been ignored.

by pat c Thu Sep 30, 2004 14:29

I suggest you moderate your language or its your comments which are more likely to be deleted. The terms you are using are abusive and imho are in breach of indy guidelines. The article by the 32 CSM is not in breach of indy guidelines. There is no Section 31 on Indymedia.

This article wont be deleted anymore than comments by apologists for the Israeli murderers of children will be deleted. (Unless they become abusive.)

by John Thu Sep 30, 2004 15:03

Offensive? There are a great many people in Ireland who would consider the very existance of a contemptable entity like the 32CSM offensive.

These people are the utter dregs of the republican movement - criminal, violent and blindingly opposed to any sembelence of peace and reconcilation in Northern Ireland.

I have one question for you, pat, if a group of people calling itself the "Dublin / Belfast Association of Thugs for the Robbery and Assault of Innocent Persons" was to post it's pseudo-political po-faced moralisings on this board, would you also be OK with it?

Because that would be an apt tag for the activities of some members of the 32CSM. And if they find my comments offensive, tough. They are a front for one of the worst collection of gurriers in this state.

A group of violent gurriers that think they are political. What a joke, but then again, recipients of their beatings might not find it entertaining. A little verbage from me is not going to bother the 32CSM too much I fear.

by Leon ADF Thu Sep 30, 2004 15:08

The no platform policy applies only to the advocacy of Fascist positions and in practise only to the advocacy of racist attitudes and language.
It would be beyond the norms of this system to delete the above post.

by really? Thu Sep 30, 2004 16:26

I don't support them but......now where have i heard that kind of garbage before? Providing these people with a platform is supporting them.Are you aware that these perverse lunatics issued a statement in SUPPORT of the chechen child murderers?And thats not offensive?

As for fascism, these people are the only true fascists operating on this Island! They are right wing and they are reactionary.

When is this insane political correctness going to stop and some reality enter into the situation.

You describe it as the "slippery slope" are you for real pat? do you honestly believe that denouncing a genuine terrorist organisation is going to lead to lawyers being murdered?

THESE PEOPLE ARE TERRORISTS, and what is even more perverse is the fact that it is their own people they are terrorising, not some
"army of occupation".

Read their website for god sake!!!!

by Leon ADF Thu Sep 30, 2004 16:56

nevertheless posts tend to be blocked only for lunacy and explicit racism. You can also be blocked for calling someone kn?ck*.

I would be surprised if there was any great difficulty in becoming an editor.

by seedot - holiholiholiday Thu Sep 30, 2004 17:11

Which bit?

the providing a platform means support? Simultaneously indymedia supports you and pat c and really and, in the past, members of sf, fg, ff, lab, greens, swp, sp, wsm, isn, etc. etc. who have all posted here.

This is rubbish.

There is a straight forward choice - this is an open publishing newswire and we have to choose where we break that model. It is broken on the basis of content and as part of a no platform to fascists policy.

Not because of who someone is.

I have a strong dislike for at least one of the parties in the above list. I would do nothing to support them in their aims - yet I have strongly defended their right to post to Indymedia in the past. because I think it is better to have them here and discussed.

In general censorship needs a censor - who by definition can't let you know what they are doing because then it isn't censored (if you see what I mean). Other than your dislike for the 32CSM can you not see that censoring this article is just the start of removing the ability to have political solutions to problems people see. We've seen enough of what happens when you remove political options.

As for use of kn?ck*. we of course oppose all use of punctuation in someones name. But you are not even allowed to know who 'we' are.

by righteous pragmatist Thu Sep 30, 2004 17:15

Those pesky Israelis are at it again.

Killing innocent Islamic maniacs going about their innocent plans to kill those guilty Jewish swine and spawn of Satan.

May their moustaches and stomachs burn in hell! Allah akbar!

by really Thu Sep 30, 2004 18:57

there is no debate, they post and run, they do not engage in debating their position. The post amounts to advertising for their organisation, they provide a link in the post which leads to a rira website, why don't you look at it? then come back and tell me it(their website) is not promoting the rira.

If a racist posted(nf for example) they would be censored, whats the difference?

by Nordie Sat Oct 02, 2004 05:03

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=93105&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27196

by pat c Sat Oct 02, 2004 18:29

condemn the rira if you will, so do i, i in no way support them. there is no defence of omagh. nor is there any defence of the rira killing of a member of the territorial army, the ta has never been used in an offsenive capacity in the north.

the same goes for the recent rira attack on building workersd at a psni base in derry. this attack could only be seen as a sectarian attack by the protestant community.

my point is the differentiation between para-military & political organisations. the 32 csm is putting forward a political view, one i disagree with, but they are not fascists.

by avi H. Sat Oct 02, 2004 20:19

After random rockets on civilians, killing two children, (a war crime even Amnesty acknowledges as such) here is another masterpiece of terrorist abuse brought to you by the idiots of Hamas. Check out the link and the photos. RIRA eat your heart out.

by Devildog Sun Oct 03, 2004 00:09

Pat C,

Apart from total number of fatalities, can you please explain the difference between Omagh and say, Enniskillen, La Mon, Birmingham or Guildford?

by SC Sun Oct 03, 2004 00:45

or perhaps Dublin and Monaghan on the 17th of May 1974, after all we should not be too selective in all of this, should we?
And while we are at it, please note that there are still many unanswered questions about that massacre.

by Nordie Sun Oct 03, 2004 01:02

Devil Dog: could you please explain, not in a legalistic sense cuz we know which are legal killings and which are illegal killings, but in a moral way and taking into account the consequences and the realities of these bombings on the ground, the difference, not in the number of fatalities, between Enniskillen, Omagh, Dublin, Dresden, Hiroshima or Fallujah?

Our Heroic Baby-Killers in Iraq
by Dave Lindorff

With U.S. troops killing more civilians than rebels, and more civilians than the rebels themselves kill, it’s no wonder most Iraqis want the U.S. military out, and right away.
We know now what our "heroic" troops in Iraq have been up to—and why they are so wildly unpopular there.


Thanks to an investigation by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, we now know that the U.S. military not only kills more civilians than rebels; it also kills more civilians than the rebels do.


According to the report, which was the banner story in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer, but didn't make page one of the New York Times, twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, are dying as a result of U.S. military operations and Iraqi police as are being killed by insurgents.


Looking at the period from last April 5–September 19, the ministry identified 3487 Iraqis killed and 13,720 injured. Of the dead, 328, or nearly one in ten, were children under the age of 12.


Examining the deaths more closely for the June 10-Sept. 10 period, the ministry concluded that two thirds of the dead died at the hands of the U.S. and its "coalition allies" and one third at the hands of rebels.


The ministry notes that the total dead could be much higher, since they only reported confirmed bodies and people who were brought to hospitals. They point out that many bodies simply aren't recovered from bomb sites, and, as well, some families bury their dead without reporting them.


Commenting on this extraordinary civilian carnage, a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, said only "damage will happen" and blamed the insurgents for the high toll of children and non-combatants, saying they operate in residential areas and homes. "As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," he said. "We will go after them."


What Boylen doesn’t address is the manner in which U.S. forces "go after" the insurgents, which is with high-powered explosives--aerial bombardment with 2000-lb bombs and blasts from M-1 Abrams tanks and rockets--none of which make much distinction between enemies and civilians, soldiers and children.


The grisly and unconscionable statistics of death in Iraq make it clear that the number one danger to life and limb in Iraq today is the American military, which explains the widespread desire for the U.S. to leave the country. It also offers a grim foretaste of what is to come if, after the election, the Bush administration were to follow through with its announced plans to "retake" the roughly one-half of Iraq, mostly urban, that is currently in rebel hands.

by Devil Dog Sun Oct 03, 2004 17:37

Nordie,

I don't think Dresden was justified - Hiroshima however ended the war quickly and probably with fewer civilian casualties than if Operation Olympic had proceeded.

As for Fallujah - as I've actually been in combat in Iraq, I have to ask you, do you really think US forces deliberately target civilians?

Great article - a quick google came up with another one by this guy comparing GWB to Hitler - all very sane balanced stuff, which is standard fare on this BB.

Now for all those out there who support PIRA - please can you answer my question without the cop-out which Nordie engaged in?

Aw, fuck it, what's the use - I'm off down the pub!

by Nordie Sun Oct 03, 2004 19:25

How simply wonderful - because someone puts his personal views of GWB in another article he has written then it must mean that the statistics he has put into the article I posted (You know the one's? Those one's that the Ministry of Health in Iraq came up with?) are wrong because he has an opinion which doesn't sit well with yours. Very good. Very good indeed.

Opps! Sorry! Didn't mean to murder all those children in your home with that missile we fired through the roof. We were just looking for the bold boys. Forgive us now, won't you? Must dally on, we're doing it again tonight. Jesus told George to, don't you know?

I don't see Enniskillen or anything like it justified in any way. But you only get righteous about the small bombings and only if the bold boys do them. I'm sure even the Omagh bombers didn't set out to kill civilians that day but they fucking did. They let the bomb off and no one else so they're responsible for the suffering. Same as any Provo bomb. The Shankill bomb was a bid to kill the Adair monster. The bombing of a restaurant by a US warplane was an attempt to kill the Saddam monster. Same effect on the ground, no? So why was one murder and the other righteous in your eyes?

by tsk tsk Sun Oct 03, 2004 20:19

in 24 hours your newswire and comments registered opinion from all "sides" to the northern ireland conflict, RSF (rep. SF)saw fit to post an article immediately after a comment had been put to another RSF (reporters without frontiers) article. was that "really" rsf? then the website of rira is plugged to lament the killing of one of the men (in his forties) suspected as being the top of an organisation that puts explosives on teenagers and blows up buses.

And this article (which is obviously just taking the piss out of you) is factually incorrect.

Syria doesn't recognise the state of Israel.
therefore there are no extradition possibilities or discussions.

The dead man didn't leave a family behind.
The only source for the info is BBC or Sanas the Syrian news agency. They didn't blame Mossad.
No-one refers to "mujahedeen" in Palestine or Hamas.

it's all complete bullshit, probably written by someone who wanted to
a) highlight your prejudice.
b) give an almost unheard organisation space.
c) make you look like idiots and journalistically amateurish and keen to give space to terrorists.
and as well someone who most probably isn't a member of 32cm or even a republican.

oh well, there has been no debate, and readers have been offended, and editorial policy comes across as being idiotic.

what a vacous pointless waste of space.
you should have deleted it or verified it.
By leaving it up you only encourage others to take the similar piss out of you and irish politics again. It's like just coz someone puts an organisation in the organisation field doesn't mean they are a member of that org.

by Badman Sun Oct 03, 2004 21:19

The article is genuine. It appears on the 32csm website at the address below. It says nothing about the indymedia editorial policy except that it is open to views and organisations that none of the editors agree with in any way. If you have a problem with the content of the article, point it out by all means. But don't confuse that with criticising indymedia. We all know that indymedia is open to eejits like the 32csm and superior ignoramuses like your good self.

by insider Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:11

Yeah right badman, and how many more editors have to resign before indymedia realise whats going on here?

PROMOTING TERRORISM!!!!

by Ali H. Mon Oct 04, 2004 13:08

Becoming a civilian casualty is avoidable for Iraqis as far as the independence fighters are concerned, civilians need only avoid occupation forces and not join the occupiers proxy police force. Collaboration is discouraged by guerilla fighters the world over and given the frequency of attacks and the fact that the American and British occupation forces continue to force civilians to congregate outside their bases would suggest that the civilians are being used as hunam shields.

In the case of the occupiers it is impossible to avoid being killed by them as they deliberately target civilian areas in the mistaken belief that they can surgically strike against the freedom fighters, and/or because they dont care if they hit the civilian population. This occupation strategy is counterproductive and will eventually lead to them leaving Iraq, with the consequent fall of the CIA-sponsored Quisling government.

by nordie Mon Oct 04, 2004 14:30

Al'Qaeda are not freedom fighters any more than the Americans are. Bush is only interested in his version of 'freedom' while Al'Qaeda are interested only in slavery.

Did anyone hear GWB the other night saying something about a democratic Iraq keeping Israel safe and being a friend of America? Wha? Who? Come again? Seriously, if elections are able to be held, whom does this man think people are going to vote for? The 'We Love Fat Sharon The Butcher Of Arabs Party' or even 'Iraqis For Right-Wing Christian Conservative Americans Party'? My guess is he'll be wishing for the good ole days of The Secular Saddam Party if Iraqis ever get to vote esp after all the murdering by the US that has taken place. The new Iraq will make Iran look like Amsterdam combined with Soho. The morons have struck again. Moronic beyond words, beyond parody. Even The Simpsons writers couldn't have dreamed this one up.

by i must be transparent. Mon Oct 04, 2004 15:18

there's a real news story over in other press you can go have all your usual "freedom fighters" versus "national self determination" complete with dirty war, death squads, curious central american connections, mountain trysts, a love story between children of the 1960s who's parents were fighters and grandparents were fighters bla bla bla stuff over there.

¿did an editor resign?
that will change history.

anyone of you basque diasporia crew know if Mikel Antza's writings are any good? He won a literature prize in 1983, at Irun which provided one of the few photos the press have of him, sleeveless t-shirt, crested hair, girly scarf tied round his neck. he looks suspiciously like a younger version of a popular history lecturer in dublin ;-)

by border foxcub Mon Oct 04, 2004 16:12

It is quite logical that the RIRA should support murderous genocidal Islamists as they are as bent on ethic murder in the six counties as Hamas are of genocide in Israel.

by pat c Tue Oct 05, 2004 16:17

"Apart from total number of fatalities, can you please explain the difference between Omagh and say, Enniskillen, La Mon, Birmingham or Guildford?"

i dont defend any of the above actions. La Mon, Birmingham or Guildford, were all civilian targets, while there was not an intention to cause casualties* these places should never have been targetted. the enniskillen cenotaph was an insane target, again the risk of civilian casualties was too high and it should never have taken place.

* in guilford, it may have been targetted because soldiers drank there, but so did civilians. so civilian casualties were inevitable in the eveny of a warning not working.