IAWM: 'This Forum Will B Closed Down If the level of commentry does not improve'

by Daniel - IAWM Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:46

Hi

IAWM members do take part in many discussions and debates on indymedia.

Very view people use the discussion forum on the irishantiwar.org. The discussions are generally completely pointless, with just a couple of posters batting back and forth ad infinitum, rather like some of the worst kind of sect wars occasionally witnessed on indymedia. They generally add nothing to our understanding of war or what to do about ending it. There have also been regular postings that as the post explains abuse the facility . As the rather tetchy post above tries to explain our volunteers do not have time to monitor racist and other abusive postings as the indymedia editorial does.

by Highly Cynical Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:25

Anything critical or even questioning of the SWP line is quickly deleted from the IAWM Forum. Attempts to suggest that secular Iraqis should be supported against the Islamic "Resistance" are also quashed. The closing down of the Forum is another move by the SWP to maintain their hegemony over communicatons within the IAWM. The SWP will allow no dissent.

by Daniel - IAWM Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:31

That's bullshit and indeed highly cynical (to the point of barefaced lying to advance your agenda) of you

by pat c Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:38

the matter has been raised on the EL.

daniel are u a moderator of the iawm forum or can you produce some examples of posts critical of the swp which were not deleted from the forum? if you could do this it would undermine our cynical friend.

by Daniel - IAWM Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:07

No post has ever been removed for being critical of swp or anyone else. Posts are expected to keep within the same rough guidelines as indymedia- some have been removed for expressing racist and/or antisemitic comments, making unsubstantiated allegations etc. But these persistently re-appear. The problem is one of resources as I have already said. The discussion forum is not a main strand of our work and much of it as anyone who cares to take a look wil realise is pointless. We put a lot more effort into organising public meetings and other open public events where anyone is free to voice whatever opinions about anything they want.

by Joe Mc Carthy Mon Apr 03, 2006 21:16

Hey Daniel a few questions can you answer?? Or maybe I am redbaiting am I? That’s the standard answer!!

Q 1 Every single chairperson in the history of the IAWM has been a member of the SWP. One person RBB. WHY? He has steered the direction of every single meeting ever

Q2 RBB puts his name at the end of every single press release ever released. FACT
Also appearing on the media in the name of the IAWM is his sole personal monopoly even when the PRO was someone else. Why is this Dan? It wouldn’t be the profile building of an ambitious politician would it Dan ? Answer Please???

Q3 Why is that every secretary of the IAWM ever, who keeps the minutes, in case of dispute, has been a member of the SWP?

Q4 Why is it that control of the website is limited to members of the SWP? The login password, the domain name details, is locked up where, who has them Dan? Answer They are kept by 2 members of the SWP.

Q5 Why is it that the policies of the IAWM and the SWP are exactly the SAME? Like ignoring every person or campaign that is not "party policy" and making sure they are kept isolated. Also people who criticise the SWP?

Q6 Why is that no financial report is ever made to members? When will a real income and expenditure account be shown? Why is it that there is money when the party wants to do things but none for other things. How much income does it make a month and how much expenses does it have?

Q7 Why is it that not one penny, not one red cent has ever been given to the legal support of antiwar people? Answers Maybe the SWP Treasurer can explain this better. Or do we even have a right to know? After all we are not on the “Steering Committee” Dan, any answers?

Q8 Where are all the contacts built up over the years of people who wanted to get involved in antiwar activity? Where do those contacts go? Has any antiwar group ever once been given these contacts to build? Never. They always stayed with the SWP, always. No independent group ever recieved a contact ever.

Q9 Why are general meetings, which can make decisions never ever held?
Do you know why? Because every single General Meeting was a sea of dissent that’s why. Now nobody will show up apart from those in the party and that will be AWFULL embarrassing Dan, awful. Any answers Dan, any answers?

Q10 Why does the "Steering Committee" meet in secret? Why does it NEVER produce a report to its members? . Is its proceedings so secret that that we never will know for “security reasons”?

The reason why the IAWM never posts on Indy media is that Indy media is open and free. That’s why the SWP black it. Even the 18th demo was not posted here.
This is a perfect example of the shoddy reality which is the IAWM. Indymedia has an enormous number of subscribers, what? 80,000 a month? Irishantiwar.org receives 250 hits a day if it is lucky and yet there was no post about the demo on the event calendar and only a short press release on the build-up meetings. The reality is that any mention of the IAWM will receive a deluge of criticism of the PARTY not the antiwar movement as such and that’s why they would rather pass over the promotion. Interests of the party first- Movement second. As usual.

People in the SWP, apart from a few are afraid to post on Indy media Dan. The party HATES Indy media Dan and posting apart from our dear friend Dave Lordon frowned on by the Bosses. Richard once abused his position as Chairman of the IAWM in a speech to against advise people not to post. The [albeit unwritten] rules are not to post on it Dan because the SWP is a class based little sect and the little guys are afraid. Remember their lives are built around the party and people often get expelled from it!!!

There are a handful of non members in the IAWM who are do their best , but that does not mean that the IAWM is not the SWP. Because they control everything that matters.

They bring our movement into utter and complete disrepute.

Your discussion board is as we all know is a basket case Dan because nobody serious or experienced will work with your party, because nobody trusts you. And that’s a absolute consensus on the Irish Dan, which is quite a bleeding achievement!!!
Even your fellow Trotskyites the SP don’t trust you my friend and that’s bad. That is why the only people who participate in your forum are fruities. (well most them).

You are also factually incorrect on the statement that the SWP does not censor posts on the site.

During the bush visit it censored events organised by antiwar ireland repeatadly.

Its awful the truth isn’t it ?

by Daniel - IAWM Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:10

Thank you senator Joe for your dodgy dossier
The only problem with it is that virtually none of it is true. And what is accurate is completely twisted out of context to morph into line with your anti irish-anti war movement thesis.
The interesting question is, even if it were all spot on, how the F*** would you know.
I assume as your pseudonym indicates you are seeking the aggrandisement of being credited with overseeing some omniscient intelligence gathering machine- that, for example, has listened in on every media broadcast the IAWM has been involved in, collected every leaflet it has ever distributed, and been present at every meeting it has ever organised.
You seem to be blissfully unaware of how ridiculous and arrogant your pathetic pseudo-infomation gathering makes you look.
More likely you have constructed your extensive charge sheet out of gossip, rumour and anonymous scandal mongering, and thrown in a few of your own steaming lumps for good measure.
That is why your post reads like a ‘worst of’ of excerpts from anonymous anti-iawm trolling.
Now you can continue with your hysterical little crusade of lies as long as you like but I can assure you that, to paraphrase Morrissey ‘the louder you get the more we ignore you’

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:37

Just saw the comment by JmcC - my intention was to post something else. I am amazed by the contents - perhaps amazed is not the right word.
However - I will post here what I came to do and will get back to Joe's drivel in the next hour or so.

I was just sent the video below by a friend : http://isahaqi.chris-floyd.com

Have a look - can't say enjoy because the brutality is overwhelming.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:12

Last Saturday, about 40 anti-war friends gathered in Dublin and discussed amicably and in a constructive way the way forward for the anti-war movement in Ireland. Comrades from Clare, Galway and Cork mingled with most Dubliners...the Peace Alliance ably hosted the meeting - anarchists, socialists, iawmers, one from SWP I could count and many non-aligned offered opinions, made suggestions, proposed actions...there will be demos in Baldonnel, decided by another 40 or so friends, in central Dublin by the iawm, in Galway over the Easter weekend. And there will be another meeting on April 22nd to continue the discussion.
This is the good and positive side...and then there is Joe McCarthy. Don't know who he/she is...don't know what his/her intentions are....but as a non-SWP member of the iawm Steering Committee I know a few things from experience...and I recognise the style of invective over many many years of working in movements and organisations.
There is no point of going through all his 10 or so 'questions'. I will stick to the fundamentals:
- In the iawm Steering Committee at the moment, that meets regularly and openly and has proper minutes of its every meeting, kept by a non-SWP comrade, non-SWP people have the majority. In my opinion, our SWP comrades work hard, harder in some cases than most, and their contribution and support is greatly appreciated.
- There is a General meeting of the iawm called for April 22nd, earlier in the day than the meeting mentioned above so as to avoid a clash. Details of times and place from the office available to all members who will be duly notified and, of course, to well wishers like McCarthy.
- The contacts built over the two or three years are available...in fact, one of the most recent decisions was for members of the Steering Committee to call/phone/email members with a view to re-activate some...interested Joe?
- There was a full financial report available to members - the iawm needs money and contributions - we are paying slowly accumulated debts. Are u a subscriber Joe?
- There has been a number of iawm comrades who regularly post in indymedia - including Dave and Daniel.
- Finally, if Joe or any of his friends, want to criticise the SWP, I am sure he/she can contact them, its members or its leadership and make his/her views known directly. For us who want to be a part of a wider anti-war network in this country, to stop the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports and prepare to organise widely against the US/British warmongering against Iran, dogmatic and sclerose comments like Joe's are a waste of time. Worse they are a diversion - they stop people acting and spread confusion. Other comrades may have more damning views on such drivel. Not knowing who Joe is lets give him/her the benefit of the doubt. But pls stop using Indymedia as a tool of politically sectarian paranoia . For all our sakes.

by Antiwarist@ Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:18

"to stop the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports and prepare to organise widely against the US/British warmongering"

Will the IAWM support the trip to Baldonnel on A16 then? The more the merrier!

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:49

The iawm office will circulate the info about Baldonnel - which I personally think it's a good move for the airport is being used more and more by US planes.

Of course, we only heard about this proposal last Saturday during the network meeting....and the iawm has its own gig outside the GPO on the Saturday afternoon. That's why co-ordination and co-operation are essential elements of the way forward. Hope you agree.

Solidarity

by Tank Girl Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:52

'Last Saturday, about 40 anti-war friends gathered in Dublin and discussed amicably and in a constructive way the way forward for the anti-war movement in Ireland. Comrades from Clare, Galway and Cork mingled with most Dubliners...the Peace Alliance ably hosted the meeting - anarchists, socialists, iawmers, one from SWP'

The meeting was not organised by the IAWM. If it had it would not have been an open meeting, it would have been packed by the SWP and any dissenting voices would have been shouted down. The SWP will sabotage any independent plans which have emerged from the meeting. They know they wont be able to control any protest at Baldonnel so they will boycott it and as they control the IAWM apparatus it will effectively be boycotted by the IAWM as an organisation.

There is good reason to wonder what happens to the IAWM finances, in the past, one local IAWM branch had the same bank account as the local SWP branch, this was dealt with in depth on Indymedia. On many occasions ,documented on Indymedia, the SWP have used IAWM contact lists to advertise SWP events.

by Stoic Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:57

"Of course, we only heard about this proposal last Saturday during the network meeting....and the iawm has its own gig outside the GPO on the Saturday afternoon"

The SWP already knew about it. You may advertise the Baldonnell gig but the SWP wont let you use IAWM facilities or will take responsibility for it and then forget to do it.

by Dave L: - swp Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:08

Hi the swp is involved in organising on a daily basis, more often then not working alongside others, many many open meetings where anyone is free to say what they want.
The Baldonnell demo is advertised on the irish anti war website.
I think the Baldonnell protest is an inspired idea. Anything that serves to subvert the establishments attempt to wipe out the the true anti-imperialist nature of the 1916 rising is to be welcomed.
We have also been thinking of what we can do to add to that project of subversion.
We will be supporting the IAWMs protest/pageant at the GPO on Easter Saturday.
There is also a very interesting project being done by code pink ireland around postering up the original proclamation to defy the postering ban.
The swp will be organising a national tour of public meetings on Connolly and 1916. Here are
the dates:

CONNOLLY TOUR:

Belfast: Thursday April 13thm, Conway Mill, Falls Rd
Galway Tuesday April 18th 8pm Grand Hotel
Waterford Wednesday April 19th: Waterford, Grandville Hotel 8pm
Cork Thursday 20th April : Spailpin Fanach 8pm
Dublin Friday 21stApril Cassidy’s Hotel 8pm
Tralee Saturday 22nd April Grand Hotel 3pm
Derry Saturday 22nd April: Sandino’s Bar (upstairs) 3pm
Athlone: Tuesday 25th April: Genoa Café 8pm

Feel free to come along and make any point you like. I promise we won't bite.

by guydebordisdead Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:18

Of course the SWP won't bite, it's widely known that their bark is much worse.

by Dave L Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:32

hee hee hee, that's true on some occassions i'm sure, but I think we could say the same about a lot of people

by Stoic Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:37

Dogs bark. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:53

Dear stoic, dear tank girl, cher guydebord est mort, dear DaveL

Please, please, can we concentrate on the real dogs of war, those who kill and murder and imprison and torture and invade...those who profit on our back? Those who collaborate?
You have all proven you are smart - u handle English with grace - u r perceptive and your comments really hit home. U made your points!
Now - can we discuss the future of the anti-war movement - for fucks sake!!

by Dan Dangler - Caucus Of Cosmic absurdists Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:58

Archive of US miltaries use of dogs here http://www.qmfound.com/War_Dogs.htm

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Tue Apr 04, 2006 16:16 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

Oh, wait! I've got the wrong thread, or do I? I'm so confused. Is IAWM the Peoples Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front? Are we in Ireland or the land of Ire? Help me, my head's exploding!

by Curious Tue Apr 04, 2006 16:21

"Help me, my head's exploding!"

Would that explain why you find it hard to hear things at the end of meetings? Like at that PBPA womens meeting?

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Tue Apr 04, 2006 16:38 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

If you have a problem with me, why don't you talk to me about it instead of airing it on an open-publishing forum. Problems can be solved, so why don't we try to do that?

by Emily Tue Apr 04, 2006 16:48

Problems could be solved easily enough if motions passed at PB4P meetings were acted on. Why not just let the Iraqi Women know that the meeting supported their appeal? By doing this PB4P would show that they are not controlled by the SWP.

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Tue Apr 04, 2006 17:06 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

or minutes, I can get that motion to Code Pink directly today. Please email me the something, and I will act on it immediately. Moreover, if someone for PB4P needs contact details for Code Pink Int'l or UK, I'd be happy to oblige.

And thank you, Emily, for pointing this omission out to me. Mea culpa.

by Emily Tue Apr 04, 2006 18:12

This is the motion that was passed unanimously at the PB4P meeting. The SWP have been trying to suppress it ever since. They oppose any raising of Womens Rights in Iraq because they say its divisive. They also attack the OWFI and call them Islamo-Phobes! These Iraqi Socialist Feminists are putting their lives on the line fighting Islamists from both the collaborationists and the Islamist "Resistance".

Call from the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq- abroad representative

To make International Women’s Day on 8 March a day of saying No to Islamic Sharia law in Iraq

To all women’s, progressive, secularist and labour movement organizations

Iraqi women are facing a historic threat. The US/UK occupation has strengthened political Islamist groups, who now constitute a majority in the US-installed parliament and have a dominant position in the new constitution based on ethnic division and the principles of Islamic Sharia law. Iraq’s personal status law will now be abolished and all marital and family matters will be conducted on the basis of Sharia and other forms of religious-tribal law. This means the enslavement of Iraqi women under a system of laws developed hundreds of years ago in the dark ages. Iraqi women will not accept their subjugation. We will stand firm against both the occupation and political Islam in Iraq.

To do this we need your solidarity - please support us in our struggle.

Please sign the following statement and send it back to us:

"The war and the occupation of Iraq by the US and UK have opened the way for reactionary forces in Iraqi society to impose a constitution based on Islamic Sharia and other forms of religious-tribal law. We the undersigned organizations and individuals condemn the introduction of religious law. We demand freedom and equality for Iraqi women and support their Struggle for a democratic, secular and egalitarian constitution."

For further information please contact Houzan Mahmoud:
houzan73@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: +44 79 56 88 3001
www.equalityiniraq.com

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Tue Apr 04, 2006 18:58 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

I'll send it off to the honchas in California right away.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 04, 2006 19:59

Emily,

Delighted to see that the PB4P resolution is out - on its way to Caitlin and from there to Cal.
However a few queries re:divisiveness remain with me:

1. If the PB4P is supposed to be "dominated" by the all-conquering SWP - how come it passes a "unanimous" resolution supporting womens rights in Iraq? By mistake or as a result of an oversight by the 'commissars'? Were they not there? Did they dominate through a virtual cloud?
2. How come the iawm, again supposedly "dominated" and overpowered by the despicable SWP, not only tolerates, but quite often is led by people like Caitlin and many many others, among them myself, who do not see the struggle for womens rights in Iraq as "divisive" - on the contrary, we situate it in the context of a popular resistance struggle that takes many forms and incorporates many diverse currents. A movement that is our greatest hope if the forces of the Empire are to be overcome.

And, in the context of the above, would it be logical to wonder that, at times, a certain over-reaction, usually tweaked by rumour and bouts of paranoia, may end up as a divisive force? Possibly? Please clarify at your pleasure.

by Dodgy watch Tue Apr 04, 2006 21:20

1. This is standard SWP front practice. Voting for things that they don't want to do as it would look bad not to vote, but ensuring that nothing gets done to back it up. There are many many examples of such practices from diverse campaigns (bin tax, anti-war movement, GR, etc)

2. All Leninist fronts depend on what the man called 'useful idiots'. There are no other organisations involved and well meaning individuals are simply incapable of dealing with a party machine.

You are an ex-member of Revolutionary Struggle. That group had and has a reputation for engaging in similar tactics and everybody who remembers that time recalls RS in a dismal light on account of their practice of taking over groups and using them as fronts as well as other varieties of . You are full of shit - you know the answers to your questions and your faux innocence is a pile of crap.

Many people who were active in the early 80's think that RS were at least remote controlled by security forces as all that they did was disasterous for the movements that they were involved in. Some things haven't changed.

by Emily Tue Apr 04, 2006 21:38

"If the PB4P is supposed to be "dominated" by the all-conquering SWP - how come it passes a "unanimous" resolution supporting womens rights in Iraq?"

Michael

The SWP members present were looking around at each other when the motion was proposed. They didnt want to be seen to oppose a motion on Womens rights at6 anm International womens Day nmeeting so they voted for it. But they then went on to do everything they could to suppress the motion afterwards. If PB4P isnt an SWP front then why havent they got in contact with OWFI?

by Simone - none Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:05

"But they then went on to do everything they could to suppress the motion afterwards."
Given that the meeting did not mandate the SWP to do anything about the motion, how is it the SWP's responsibility? Apart from not acting on something that was not their responsibility how else did the SWP "do evertyhing they could to suppress the motion afterwards"? Emily what is your real agenda?

by Emily Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:15

The meeting mandated PB4P to communicate with the OWFI. This has not happened. Why? I suspect its because the SWP control PB4P. The SWP hate the OWFI and oppose the raising of Womens rights in Iraq. They say it is divisive. Womens rights divisive!

My only agenda is to fight for Womens rights and to expose those charlatans who claim to be socialists but prefer to line up with Islamic Fundamentalists rather than support Iraqi Socialist Feminists.

Simone, whats your agenda? Are you in the SWP? Do you support the above appeal by the OWFI or do you stand with the SWP and the Mullahs?

by Simone - none Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:33

Emily: You directly accused SWP of deliberately suppressing a motion. Now you say you suspect PBP didn't act because of the SWP. Which is it? Surely a democratic meeting itself decides what to do with a motion and if the person charged with doing it doesn't then there are grounds for criticism. But the SWP were not asked to communicate the motion to anyone. So in no way have they behaved improperly. I see you are now unable to stand over your accusation that the SWP supressed the motion, which was the original accusation you made on this thread and others in the hope of damaging their reputation. Now you talk of suspicion. I suspect a few things about you but I would hesitate to throw accusations around publicly without being able to stand over them.
My agenda: I read Inymedia and like a lot of it and find it a sueful resource for activitst. But I get sick of it being ruined by people dragging it down with divisive slander.
Now we understand each other

by Emily Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:49

Simone I have been quite clear in my charges at all times. The SWP control PB4P and have stopped the motion from being communicated further by PB4P. I find it interesting that you are more interested in defending the SWP than defending Iraqi Women. Thats why I wonder where your allegiances lie.

If you are independent then dont you find it even the slightest bit strange that the SWP are opposiong Socialist Feminists in both Iraq and Iran? If anything smells funny around here then it is the SWP. Their unqualified support for Islamic Fundamentalists stinks to high heaven and the smell attachs to anyone who lines up with the SWP against Womens rights.

by Dodgy watch Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:57

Given that the meeting did not mandate the SWP to do anything about the motion, how is it the SWP's responsibility? Apart from not acting on something that was not their responsibility how else did the SWP

This question leads us to another common characteristic of the front. The point of the front is that the party that controls it has a party machinery which possesses the organisation to ensure that the things that the leadership wants to get carried out get carried out. Thus, regardless of what gets voted upon, only those things that the party want to happen actually happen. The rest of the things that are voted upon fall into the abyss of being nobody's responsibility and since there is none of the other people involved have the organisational infrastructure to share out the responsibilities and tasks required to do things, the party has a monopoly on what the front ends up doing, although it may even lose votes and so on.

In this case, the front voted on a certain course of action and now the SWP are saying - hey, we never said we'd do it. But there is no other mechanism within the IAWM / PB4P for actually implementing proposals. If the party don't take it upon themselves it falls down the back of the sofa along with all the other stuff.

by Simone - not SWP Tue Apr 04, 2006 23:12

Emily,
In case you are worried no I am not in the SWP. I admit to being confused on the question of the Islamic resistance. While I have sympathy with those fighting the invaders I am not in support of fundamentalism. I think the SWP has a harder position. I'm don't go all the way with them. I think you exaggerate when you say they are lining up with the Mullahs. But that is your opinion to which you are entitled.
My argument with you is that you have directly accused the SWP of suppressing a motion they had been charged with communicating to others. But you do not argue when I point out that they were not asked to communicate the motion. So you say it's obvious that they are to blame because the SWP dominate and control PB4P. But that has not been my experience, nor the experience of other people not in the SWP who have commented here. And the meeting that you spoke of was certainly not dominated by the SWP.
Fair enough: You obviously don't like the SWP, which is a valid point of view, but you go on to imply that anyone who questions your accusations must be a dupe of the SWP or as another poster says "idiot". This is what I object to. How can a useful discussion of anti war activity or the question of how we should look on the diverse resistance in Iraq be conducted by when malevolent gossip is for so many posters (including yourself) their only stock-in-trade? How can we hope to get the Americans from violating our neutrality if we spend our time sewing suspicion and throwing unsubstatiated allegations at those who should be our allies?
I think we all have something to learn and I hope I am not alone in pleading with people to stop this malevolent sh*t-stirring.

by circular logick Tue Apr 04, 2006 23:39

'...and now the SWP are saying - hey, we never said we'd do it. But there is no other mechanism within the IAWM / PB4P for actually implementing proposals. If the party don't take it upon themselves it falls down the back of the sofa along with all the other stuff.'

yes, and what comes after that is when members of the group act on their own to implement the agreed upon action, those members are called 'splitters' and then can be reprimanded or otherwise ostracized.

Also, If one just how many members of the steering committee (or whatever) are actually SWP, 1) claim there is a privacy issue (how dare you ask! people might lose their jobs if it were known) and that leads to 2) if you keep asking you must be a MacCarthyist!

Would be interesting to make a board game out of this.

by Dodgy watch Tue Apr 04, 2006 23:54

Me: All Leninist fronts depend on what the man called 'useful idiots'.

Simone: but you go on to imply that anyone who questions your accusations must be a dupe of the SWP or as another poster says "idiot"

s/he is similarly lying when she claims not to be in the SWP. How do I know this? Because that is a standard formulaic SWP response to people pointing out the well documented practice of Leninist group controlling fronts that stretches back to the man himself.

Happily enough they've shown their true colours to too many people and they are dying. The IAWM may well be the last serious movement that they destroy.

by splicer Wed Apr 05, 2006 03:54

Jeez redjade Only about 3 people posted on it why did it matter.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:04

Dodgy - don't know who u are and I think I am better off that way.
Your invective and your language smell awful bad.
Attacking people for being now or in the past members or supporters of left wing organisations is a tactic used either by the State security forces or Ministers connected to them (see the Minister of Injustice) for attacking Frank Connolly of being a member of RS [I think he called him an 'enemy of the State'] or right wing media [see the Independent cabal]....or incorrigible dumbwits blinded by their sectarianism.
Being as McD says an enemy of the State and being "remote controlled" by security forces, as you say, does not sit well - you must agree. But then again who knows what scenarios are hatched in a dodgy matrix like yours.
And, of course, there is always the possibility of more exotic fruits....
Do us all a favour and follow the red kernel of the debate in this thread and if you have anything to contribute do it.
Otherwise u r wasting all our time and you are better off doing something useful with yourself.

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:37 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

I've posted a trancript of "The Phoenix" article about this dodgy business here in Ireland on the Code Pink Ireland Blog:

http://tinyurl.com/ez75x

In light of what you've just written, it makes for much more interesting reading! I think I shall post it on the IAWM discussion board, which I should have done long ago, and see if anyone's done further inquiry into this very pertinent issue!

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:56

Dear Caitlin,

Thanks for the comment. Yes I have read the piece and it makes - what's the word - horrific but expected reading. Hope everybody goes and reads it.

Having been a devoted reader/surfer/contributor of Indymedia over the last few months, which I think plays such an important role in trying to counteract establishment propaganda, I am struck of how often in each thread of significance - be it on the war and Shannon, be it on womens rights, be it on immigration, be it on elections, be it on Trade Union and workplace issues - there is always one or two 'anonymous' contributors who go on the attack against activists...it's the SWP, it's the Labour Youth, it's the Socialist Party, it's the RAR, it's the anarchists...it's now Code Pink....it's anybody who tries to organise, who tries to co-ordinate, who has an identifiable progressive stance.
We are accused of being liars, dominators, Black + Tans, we are manipulated by dark forces, we are trolls, we are soft idiots....we are mistaken, we are doomed to fail, we are....

What does this tell you companera? Does it not tell you that they're shit scared? Does it not tell you that we are their worst nightmare? Two crucial meets took place over the last couple of days - on the war last Saturday, on the elections last night....
I am very optimistic...but we have to be careful....very determined and ready to confront the next tactic - when they start lifting and interrogating/charging people.

Solidarity with your work Caitlin

by Mick Wed Apr 05, 2006 13:47

"What does this tell you companera? Does it not tell you that they're shit scared? Does it not tell you that we are their worst nightmare?"
Michael, I don't know who you are but the above makes to sound like a right wanker. The state afraid of the left? Don't make me laugh.
On the swp, if all the accusations are bullshit how come NO other group amd most individuals will not work with them?

by Emily Wed Apr 05, 2006 14:06

You make me laugh. You are not very good at dissembling. How come this is the first thread you have posted on?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 05, 2006 14:16

Dear Mick,

Read the Phoenix article and tell us what you think all these heads were doing over there...are they into wasting their time?

The issue is not the SWP and, incidentally, I don't care a shit whether people want or don't want to work with them. The issue in question is that in every thread in Indymedia there is one or two funny guys/gals who spread dispondency, attack individuals usually from organisations, argue that struggle is a waste of time, or, as in your case, that the State is not worried about the left...of any movement....or the people. The State is omnipotent dear friend...look at France...look at Iraq...read Fianna Fail intellectuals and their fear of active citizens. Study what Martin Mansergh says.

Incidentally, wanking can be a pleasurable activity too under certain circumstances. Even macho dudes have been known to engage in it with or without partners.

by Emily Wed Apr 05, 2006 15:00

You should know by now how much the SWP is hated by genuine Anti War activists. The SWP have destroyed the IAWM by expelling activists or driving them out. This is not a joking matter. They are now doing the same with PB4P. Dont you ever ask yourself why the SWP HAVE TO PREVENT a message of support going to the OWFI?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 05, 2006 15:35

Dear Emily,

I read with a lot of attention your comments and the responses by Caitlin and others in this thread. I understand what you're saying and to a great extent I agree with you. Only last night we were talking with a few anti-war friends who left the iawm (not expelled - l e f t) because of their disagrements with the SWP chananigans. I wasn't privileged anough to witness that stuff but I can read, hear and understand.
Your views about the SWP, or indeed the views of any genuine comrade about any organisation, must be respected.
However, and this is my monkey, we must find ways of working together, of co-ordinating, of focussing on what the real enemy is and does.
There is a meeting of the PB4P on Friday next - will you be there? Will you participate? Will you fight for a more democratic movement? That's what I care about.
I am in the iawm because, despite its many shortcomings, methinks that is the best there is on the anti-war front at the moment. I, along with many others, have been working very hard on the Shannon warport issue over the past while. The SWP, on any other P, never stopped me and I hope they never will. You will, I am sure, make your own decision about the PB4P. And our decisions, whatever they may turn out to be, must be given the same respect. I hope we agree on that one.

Solidarity

by BK Wed Apr 05, 2006 16:51

"There is a meeting of the PB4P on Friday next - will you be there? Will you participate? Will you fight for a more democratic movement? That's what I care about."

If you don't think that this is this vehicle for fighting for a more democratic movement mean that I don't care?

by Joe Mc Carthy - m15 Wed Apr 05, 2006 19:31

First an Introduction my name is not really Joe McCarthy!

But thats the last lie Ill be telling

Thats a slag on the mantra of the SWP when it is criticised not for their politics, but for the despicable and manipulative dishonesty of their leadership. The other standard reply (or non reply is) "I am not ashamed to be a socialist " or "they are attacking the socialists"

Well MichaelY you at least gave some answers to the questions. Your answers a bit spinned but at least there’s a bit of reason there so I will engage with you in frank discussion.
The rest you presumably agree with. They are all true. I value truth. Our good name is our greatest power, because people are used to being manipulated. In the peace movement we must be truthful at all times and be ruthless with those who use our movement name and reputation..

The 10 points above, let the McBrearty Campaign, The PB4P and all other groups listen and learn. They had better watch out or they’re next. They all ready packing your meetings so good luck you’ll need it guys.

As for poor old persecuted Daniel , if my word are lies would you like to say which ones? Come on Dan Come on! Tell the readers the truth!!

As I said Michael Y put a spin on the responses!

QUOTE "In the iawm Steering Committee at the moment, that meets regularly and openly and has proper minutes of its every meeting, kept by a non-SWP comrade, non-SWP people have the majority. In my opinion ..............."

It does not meet openly in the eyes of the members the members are never told where the meetings are held, what is on the agenda, or the decisions made. It’s strictly closed to the eyes of members. The iawm fought hard to keep it that way, very hard. This is a control mechanism.

Also I am glad to hear “WE” have a new secretary. Of course as usual nobody bothered to inform the members. Secretary is an important officer position .

He / She is Non SWP? Good, The first one in the history of the IAWM !!!
Like to say who the person is ? or is that secret too? What a farce!
Secretary 1 Aoife Ni Fhearghil SWP
Secretary 2 Colm Stephens SWP
Secretary 3 Sinead Ni Bhroin SWP
Secretary 4 ?

QUOTE "- There is a General meeting of the iawm called for April 22nd, earlier in the day than the meeting mentioned above so as to avoid a clash. Details of times and place from the office available to all members who will be duly notified and, of course, to well wishers like McCarthy. ENDQUOTE

Well this is true but may I inform indy reader that this is the first general meeting of the IAWM in eighteen months. Michael does not know or did not say this. A profound democratic deficit. Neither will this meeting hold the Central Committee (ooops I mean the Steering Committee) to account. That is because they are effectively fixed (but I have to give you evidence to back up this claim and will do on the next post.)

QUOTE
" --Contacts built over the two or three years are available...in fact, one of the most recent decisions was for members of the Steering Committee to call/phone/email members with a view to re-activate some...interested Joe?
ENDQUOTE

True, but irrelevant say this totally unimportent piece of spin. We know that the membership list is available but to whom? Its has never been made available to antiwar groups which were not SWP groups even when there were independent groups. Will MAMA in Limerick get a call from somebody to say "Heres a girl in Clare whats to work in the Peace Movement? That would be a breakthrough a first !! Not in the last 3 years anyhow, but now MichaelY is saying they have turned around now!

QUOTE " There was a full financial report available to members - the iawm needs money and contributions - we are paying slowly accumulated debts. Are u a subscriber Joe?" ENDQUOTE

A co-optee of the SC saying there is a financial report available to members? Another u turn. First I will ever seen? Where can i read it and will all "members" get one. It is “available” well send it out and lets have a read. And NO I wont advise anybody to give you money because I don’t know where the money goes. Not until I see credible income and expenditure accounts will I advise anybody to give you money.

CONCLUSIONS

1 The IAWM is and is seen to be by all and sundry as the creature of the SWP . All the functions ,image communications both internal and external, bulletin list are arrogated to that little group, which is a tightly controlled and internally disciplined Trotskyite party which operates standard Trotskyite / Leninist entryist tactics. It controls the SC through a mixture of the block vote, appointing its friends, and offering little favours to allies

2 The IAWM has failed because its good name and reputation is utterly lost , both to a potential activist base and to the public at large who unfortunatly associate us with the cultish SWP.

3 Not only has the organisation which bears our name failed, it has no chance of recovery. It has no chance of ever being an umberella organisation. Neither was it set up to be an umbrella group. It was set up as an entryist tactic for the recruitment of what Lennin called "Professional" revolutionaries.

4 It should be disolved and a fresh new Democratic, Open And Accountable organisation put in its place. This will never happen in the IAWM because all the meetings of the IAWM will be packed on the day manipulated and we will all be frankly worn done until we are all exhausted . That the IAWM is unreformable is perfectly clear and obvious to everybody except the politically naïve or ambitious . Experience shows that the little pack session on the 22nd Of April after 2 years absence is unlikely to change anything.

5 MichaelY if you have the best interest of the Antiwar Movement in Ireland at heart, stop bring yourself into disrepute by defending what is clearly not defendable. The SWP do not have a reputation to defend. If you continue, nobody will trust you because the sleaze is as plain as the nose on our faces.

We are not children
And stop your ridiculous spin doctoring. Stop Barking about influence operations !!
I’m not a fool and neither are our readers

by MichealY - iawm Wed Apr 05, 2006 20:24

Joe - or whatever your name is

I agree with you fully that in the peace movement we must be truthful at all times - with that in mind please accept my response with the respect that I will hopefully show to what you write.
On the Steering Committee issue, I was co-opted about 10 weeks ago - since then another non SWP comrade also came on board following a suggestion from the Dublin Action group of iawm that I co-ordinated. The latter btw met regularly every Saturday following the Grafton Street leafletting/stall. The Steering Committee meets regularly, has a non SWP Secretary, minutes of decisions are kept and I am sure, if you are a member of the iawm, these minutes will be available to you from the office. If for whatever reason, you are unable to get them, please let the Indymedia readership know, who are following this debate, if that's what it is, with bated breath, and I will make sure you get them.
On the Secretary issue, when I joined Sinead was indeed the Secretary...as far as I know she is not in the SWP - and I have no idea if she ever was. The current Secretary is not an SWP member and is very efficient and committed.
On the general meeting issue I joined last summer '05 at the AGM with a whole set of people present. If my maths hold water that's not 18 months ago....and the fact that there is a meeting on April 22nd is, you must agree, a step forward.
The membership list is in the office, it is available to members, I know this for a fact and members of the Steering Committee, at our last meeting, decided to call people in an organised manner with a view to re-activation.
On the money issue, I have seen the accounts, I know we are in debt, I know how much the movement paid for organising the various visits from Cindy Sheehan last December, to our other guests, to the truck and equipment for the March 18th demo....for running the office. I presume you are a member Joe, and I will make sure, personally, that full accounts are circulated during the General meeting to members. Will you be there?

Conclusions:

I am surprised you call some new positive developments "u turns". Whether the iawm is reformable or not time will tell. Some of us who are neither politically naive, nor children to be manipulated at will, will try to continue our struggle against the war, against the use of Shannon and against US/Brit warmongering against Iran.
Your views on the iawm, or the SWP, are your views. On the latter please address them to that party...I am sure they will appreciate your concern and will respond adequately. On the iawm, however, open your eyes, appreciate the reality of the situation and not what it was 2 years ago or what you think it is....and either join us or work with us for what I hope are common objectives.

For me, peace at the age of the Empire goes together with the struggle for democracy and the fight for liberation. Are we together there Joe?

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Thu Apr 06, 2006 00:00 thelateglenngould at gmail dot com

The treasurer of IAWM, Kieran O'Sullivan, is not a member of the SWP. I think people often confuse Kieran with his twin brother Martin, but they really are quite different people, though both dedicted to stopping this bloody war.

Please get your facts straight before firing with both barrels. IAWM attracts people from every walk of life. I'm in Code Pink & Amnesty Int'l, PETA, the Tolkien Society, and deeply involved with more than one Glenn Gould organization. I'm definitely not out to turn everyone into pink vegans, but I am determined to convert the world to the genius of Glenn Gould, who was definitely not involved with SWP.

Calling people a "this" or a "that" doesn't really accomplish much except creating barriers to understanding, and it sounds an awful like Bush-think: you're either with us, or your with the terrorists. The world and its diverse inhabitants just don't fall into black or white divisions.

Maybe if everyone would start listening to Gould's "Goldberg Variations", we could argue about which version's the definitive one--1955 or 1981. Now that's a discussion I'd love to have.

by Updater Thu Apr 06, 2006 13:10

"On the Secretary issue, when I joined Sinead was indeed the Secretary...as far as I know she is not in the SWP - and I have no idea if she ever was."

She was on the national executive or whatver they call it of the SWP at the time. Has admitted on this site that she is not now a member of the SWP. You might have been away for a while Michael but there are good archives on this site.

by 4 example Thu Apr 06, 2006 13:20

example: http://indymedia.ie/article/70910#comment115121

calls herself SWP July 18, 2005

by pat c Thu Apr 06, 2006 13:54

She recently posted on Indymedia noting that she had left the SWP.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 06, 2006 14:56

Have resisted over the last while from jumping in and commenting on every post - and if you look at it from an 'objective' corner, this thread is very enjoyable. Funny. Clever. Apparently, serious people debating in earnest on whether an ex-Secretary of the iawm, was or was not, is or is not, has or has not been a member of a political organisation. Everybody I know says she was, and continues to be, an excellent, active, intelligent and sensitive member of the iawm - and that's good enough for me. Her (ex?)swp membership is, for me at least, of total and utter irrelevance. One of the most active people in the iawm over the last while is, as far as I know, a member of the Labour Party. And was there before the sticks decided to enter and destroy. So? Does that devalue his work or should we try now to tar him with a Rabbitte brush?
What I would like to see is all these serious and knowledgable friends to offer some ideas, to make a contribution of how to proceed in the wider anti-war movement. From where we are to where we want to get to. Because while we debate such and such person's antecedents, US soldiers and armaments continue to pass backs and forth from Shannon, flights come in and out, people in Iraq continue to get slaughtered and plans to bomb/invade Iran are continuing to be hatched.
So - come on updater, by 4 ex, patc, Joe XX - tell us what you think about the future. Map out elements of your strategy apart from trying to locate an swp or any other 'poisonous' imprint/shadow on everybody who dares to move his/her head over the parapet. Waiting....

by pat c Thu Apr 06, 2006 15:03

i was just pointing out that sinead was no longer in the swp. some were using that as a stick to beat her with. in the short term the best way to advance an anti war agenda is to have a good demo at baldonnel.

i honestly cant see myself getting involved with the iawm. too much history. well, i might if the post of chair was democratically elected. (is there an swp front that RBB doesnt chair?)

by Phil Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:15

So Michael all criticism is wrong because you're involved now. I was once in the IAWM and was to a couple of general meetings. Key inviduals still involved in the IAWM seemed IMO to go out of their way to alienate unity between different groups and individuals who didn't follow the 'line'.
You seem to ignore people who were around and involved in the IAWM well before you got involved and decided that it was the only show in town. Is there a year zero thing going on? Was that the day you got involved? Out of curiousity where were you when the IAWM was at its zenith several years ago and not at the nadir it finds itself at due to the machinations of key individuals. It's a bit precious somebody coming along and telling us what we are doing wrong, who won't even bother to find out where other people are coming from or claims its not important.
And to end on a positive note, let's see how the IAWM orientates towards the An Cos' Siochana initiative. That would be instructive of whether things have changed, don't you think?

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 06, 2006 16:40

Dear Phil,

With all due respect, nowhere in my posts will you find any criticism of any organisation active in the anti-war struggle. On the contrary, we supported the Shannon camp - we supported the Peace Alliance's vigil of the Minister's HQ- we will support the Baldonnel march. We had a bit of laugh when the B&R contingent went to the Park to discuss tactics recently but then struggle can be fun too.
Two, again with respect, what I read constantly in here is the horrors that happened two years ago and a barrage of invective against SWP individuals...little have I read about what the iawm has done since, let us say since last summer. The march to Shannon, Cindy's visit, the constant leafletting stalls, the March 18 demo, the countrywide tour of an Iraqi and a Vietnam vet where over 700 people turned up.....the IFI Film showing of 'Hearts and Minds'.... Are these all a waste of time because your and your friends heart was broken in 2004? Because the SWP was out of line in your opinion?
As for the recent anti-war meeting hosted by the Peace Alliance - you obviously missed it but we also called for the meeting, took part along with L and his friends who come to iawm meets, helped with the organisation and will be there on the 22nd. But as mentioned in my last post, criticise the SWP as much as you want - they listen and will respond if the need arises. I can't unfortunately mend your broken heart. The past is important, your and my memories are crucial but what matters is what we do right now...so? Tell me....
BTW my Year Zero was sometime around the early '60s when I first tasted the inside of a [political]police cell....when was yours dear friend?

by Observer Thu Apr 06, 2006 17:18

Michael,

Are you sure you're not Ciaron O'Reilly? You sound like a good imitation if not, what with bragging about your years of involvement and time in police cells, etc. etc. Gis a break, pleeze!

Good on the IAWM for all its work - but, fcuk it, it's a front group (and a tiny one) for the SWP. You saying otherwise over and over again won't change the reality. Nevertheles it does good work. As do you. Fight the power.

by Curious Thu Apr 06, 2006 18:07

What country was your original cell in? Chile, Turkey, Greece, Italy? I ask this because when you first turned up in Ireland your story kept changing. You started out as a Chilean refugee and your nationality then changed as quickly as the SWP line. Eventually you were fondly known as Mick the Greek. Come on, give us a few answers.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 06, 2006 18:19

Hey curious - here in Ireland I listened to my comrades using a rather nifty saying about 'curiosity' - and is it cats or dogs that it's linked to? Get a cop on....

by Curious Thu Apr 06, 2006 18:29

"Hey curious - here in Ireland I listened to my comrades using a rather nifty saying about 'curiosity' - and is it cats or dogs that it's linked to?"

You have lived long enough it Ireland to know the answer. Maybe its the Dogs of War. But at least tell us why you originally claimed to be Chilean.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 06, 2006 18:43

So the lies continue.

And the dogs of war are unleashed on anyone who threatens to expose those lies and seems to be able to use a public forum in which to do so.

Any views on the quotation above?
In case you don't know it's from President Allende. Does the name tell you anything?

And curious - are you hitting on me? While an explicit personal relationship is out of the question, come over to any of the iawm meets and you can buy me a drink or two.

by S. Costello Thu Apr 06, 2006 21:22

Mick the Greek asks curious to make the link between 'curious' and 'cat'. Mick, the link is obviously the phrase 'curiousity killed the cat'. Are you threatening contributors to this thread?

by Cailtin - Code Pink Ireland Thu Apr 06, 2006 22:02 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

Not making a threat at all. How we interpret things often says more about us than it does about the thing. Why raise the bar on the hostility already in evidence here? What we're talking about here is peace, how to make it, and how to keep it.

by Dodgy watch Thu Apr 06, 2006 22:30

He wasn't. There is simply no possible way that a sane person could interpret his allusion to cats and curiosity as an offer to buy somebody a drink.

At least the IAWM's latest ambassador to the planet earth has acheived a first. He's actually making the IAWM look even more Dodgy than the SWP have ever managed. And they did their best.

Time to wheel this one off the stage boyos - I'm sure you can find somebody a little less dodgy to put the SWP's case that the SWP is not in control of the IAWM. I think pinochet is unemployed at the moment.

by Cailtin - Code Pink Ireland Thu Apr 06, 2006 23:10 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

Not only are my ears going (see previous comments), but my eyes as well. Too much time in front of a computer screen, old glasses, and long in tooth! Plus, a long day of, ironically, proof-reading copy for "CounterPunch". As I said, how we interpret a thing often tells us more about ourselves than it does about the thing. My interpretation tells me that I'm tired and that I need to enlarge the print on the screen. But be that as it may, I honestly though Michael Y was offering to buy a Curious a drink, but thanks to you, my misreading is patently obvious. Is there something wrong about assuming the best in others?

by Dodgy watch Thu Apr 06, 2006 23:19

Answer: yes, if the assumption ignores the evidence.

Example: Ah sure Dubya is a good guy at heart, he's just made a few mistakes. We should assume that he's trying his darndest to bring about global peace and security.

by Ciaron O'Reilly Thu Apr 06, 2006 23:46

Don't now how my name got dragged into a debate on the IAWM. I was never a member. Nor had I experienced such a timid anti-war movement anywhere in the world and at anytime in my involvement since '77.

"Observer" signs off with "Fight the Power"....has s/he any idea what that means or the consequences? The people who did put themselves on the line at Shannon from the disarmers to the trespassers to the fence pullers were left high and dry by the IAWM. Observer sounds like a boy with a problem, you know where to find me dude if you want to share your problem.

As I've said before, these fronts are not serious about resisting Irish complicity in the war. Thery are a marketting opportunity for an otherwise small irrelvant ideology & party.

A good critique about how this functions using the example of the attempted body snatching of the anti-globalisation movement is the Schnews pamphlet "Monopolise Resistance" see Link below

by Cailtin - Code Pink Ireland Fri Apr 07, 2006 00:17 codepinkireland at gmail dot com

I know Michael Y, and he's never been anything other than kind, decent, and respectful to me. Moreover, I've never witnessed him treat anyone with anything less than these qualities. Does that mean Michael Y is incapable of unchivalrous behavior? Probably not. He's human, and therefore capable of all the foibles that flesh is heir to, just as I am, just as you most likely are. But I don't know you, so I don't know what kind of a person you are or how you conduct yourself with others, thus I won't assume anything about you, okay? I will and do make assumptions about Michael Y based on observed behavior. I do the same with George W. Bush, who is not kind, decent, or respectful of anyone--unless that person has oceans of wealth and/or oil. I've been observing George W. Bush for well over a decade, and I know how he treats generally treats others--with utter contempt and disdain. I know how George W. Bush treated me and my child. I know up-close-and-personal a great deal about how George W. Bush treats the less-than-hyper-rich, and I'm not talking about people who live outside the US who are being bombed by him. I may not be able to read a couple of sentences after a 15-hour day, but I do know a cruel tyrant when I see one (let me make this clear: George W. Bush); Michael Y is not a cruel tyrant. He's a basically a nice, caring man who's doing his best to make peace through activism.

Just because I misread something, please don't take it out on Michael Y. He doesn't deserve it. If you want to beat up on me, go ahead. But please be warned, I am physically disabled, though that might not be visibile to you--certainly not on the page. So you will be beating up on a cripple. And that's no joke, no laughing matter, and no lie. I do indeed have, as part and parcel of my disability, damage to my eardrums and inner ear--thus my not hearing well at meetings, and I do have a permanently damaged cornea and iris, which worsens after reading for long hours. There's more, too! Though this is not the place for it. I do, however, believe that we shouldn't make jokes about people's hearing, reading, walking, balance--or color, gender, religion, et alia--on a webpage because sometimes those stones that are throne in "cleverness" or sarcasm hit their mark with a vengeance perhaps not intended by the poster.
Far too often commentary here hurts people deeply--people who cannot defend themselves because they are disabled. Calling people insane, deaf, blind, retarded, racist, anti-semitic, islamo-fascist, etc. can often be way, way off the mark. How do you know I'm not a transgendered, hereditary Arab converted to Judiasm, partnered with a born-again Christian who's black, blind, and a former POW with PTSD and cancer? You don't. So don't assume anything about me unless you know me. And if you do know, please have the courage of your so-called convictions and flame me to my face--or at least via email.

by Basher Flynn Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:33

Mick the Greek threatening people!! Ha ha ha. Mr Mysterious himself.

Cop yourself on Michael. You're not being very constructive.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:27

Our activity in the iawm must be threatening and annoying some folks.

Over the last couple of days a whole cabal [Updater,Observer,Basher Flynn,Dodgy Watch, S.Costello, Curious and Joe McCarthy] took upon themselves to attack the iawm and myself in this thread. 'Basher' indeed....lol.
It won't work lads. Name calling and invective and bile reflects only on its originators. [Mirror mirror on the wall etc]. It's been tried before and it never worked.You're wasting your time. Unless of course scaring and disorganising people is the objective...I wonder.
Go back to your holes and, if you're literate, reflect on the title of this thread.

And,btw, if you have anything serious to contribute go to to the thread entitled 'Some Observations On The Cosantoiri Siochana Anti War Meeting' and blind us with your intellect.
You've added spice to may last couple of days anyway - for that I suppose I can thank you.
Regards

by Caitlin - Code Pink Ireland Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:42 coedpinkireland at gmail dot com

I wonder how many who've read this obstreperous and fissiparous thread are members and/or supporters of RAR? I wonder what those readers think of the ad hominems directed toward Michael Y's alleged ethnic origins?

Just askin'!

by Curious Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:37

No one has directed any racist slurs towards Michael Y. You may be missing the point. When Mick the Greek first arrived in Ireland he claimed to be a Chilean Refugee. His story kept changing, he was Bulgarian, Turkish, Italian, Greek. Nothing racist about wanting to find out where a man really hails from. You know Michael Y now but did you know him 30 years ago?

Michael could clear up a lot if he would just let us know why he is a man of so many nationalities, a veritable one man United Nations. I am also interested in finding out about where he spent his years in exile. As for threats, coming from him I laugh at them. I think he was making a threat but a threat that comes from a fat old man is not at all intimidating. Mick the Greek does not have Revolutionary Struggle to back him up anymore.

by Updater Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52

I posted info that Sinead had been a member of the SWP, as you said you didn't know whether she was or not. I also suggested checking out the good archives here. And from that you got that I attacked the IAWM and yourself. You do good work but are fast becoming a bit hysterical. Take it easy.

by Simone - none Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:00

For daring to express an opinion on this thread which contradicted those bashing the SWP, I was accused of lying, I was told I was in the SWP when I explicitly said I wasn't, told I was not credible because I hadn't posted here before, etc, etc, by someone or some people behind various pseudonyms, all implying they had the best interests of the anti war movement behind.
MickY has been similarly attacked for suggesting anti-war activists concentrate on the job in hand.
I don't care how fat or thin MickY is, or his nationality, sexual orientation, taste in music, etc, etc. He has made sensible contributions. Unlike Curious, who insists various personal details of MickY are "cleared up". It would help clear up a lot if we knew Updater's, Observer's, Basher Flynn's, Dodgy Watch's, S.Costellos, Curious' and Joe McCarthy's real agenda. I am coming to conclusion that they are not genuine anti-war activists, but disrupters. I am alone in this opinion?

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:03

Updater,

Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated.
I thought the quote below reflects well how some of us feel:

"They merged at last into a kind of hysterical exhilaration."
Time Machine by Wells, H.G.
http://wells.thefreelibrary.com/Time-Machine/1-3#hysterical

Regards

by Curious Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:04

"I am alone in this opinion?"

No. I'm sure Mick the Greek and your SWP comrades share your opinions. Maybe you are just a useful fool rather than in the SWP. But even so you might ask why Mick the Greek keeps changing his nationality. Nobody mentioned Micks orientation and saying hes old and fat is just an accurate observation.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:15

Cheers.

Simone? Is that French? or Spanish? Perhaps Rumanian as they do have Catholic traces.
Anyway, what's nationality after all? We are who we are - I'm sure you agree.
Have a look at the link below. I liked the song.
The 'au revoir' is really Arabic for see you soon. Though I heard it used by a Belfast man recently in another context.

http://www.aurevoirsimone.com/music/aurevoirsimone_back...s.mp3

by Tony Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:23

So what? It's amazing how often people on Indymedia resort to racist baiting of their opponents. I wouldn't know Michael Y from a bar of soap, but the disgusting way he is being attacked over his background, instead of dealing with his arguments, puts me on his his side anyway.
The same applies to the mindless attacks on disabled people.
Comrades, if you deserve that name, why don't you use political arguments against IAWM, rather than gossip, personal innuendo, or racism?

by Curious Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:28

My last posting should make it clear that its the many identities taken on by Michael that bother me. In any radical group when someones back story keeps changing then alarm bells should ring. I hope I did not write anything nasty about the differently abled. If I did it was not deliberate.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:45

Go on curious - tell us more about your alarm bells...tell us of your views on the war. This discussion, at least for me, is not personal...it's political. Explain yourself. Open your heart - unburden yourself.

I am sure there is no connection but we have been all amazed and horrified in this country by the recent unsubstantiated accusations of a Minister against Frank, another ex-RS militant, doing good work and threatening the power system. Is that your problem? If you have something substantial to say - come out with it. Otherwise your alarm bells will be seen as reflecting a very distorted and insecure state of mind.

And surely, you must have something better to do with yourself than attack individuals...let go. And I did tell you yesterday...come to an anti-war meeting and you can buy me a couple of drinks and I will answer all the jingling in your head. Deal? Otherwise your approach appears to everybody as more and more curious.

by Curious Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:49

Good try Mick but you are the one under the spotlight. You are more likely to share McDowells company than I am but I guess for practical reasons you only deal with those lower down the chain. I might not agree with Frank Connolly all the time but I have nothing but respect for him. I doubt if he would give you a clean bill of health.

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland (and Irish Socialist Network) Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:53

While I can understand some of frustration expressed on this thread, is this really worth 81 comments?

Elsewhere on indymedia, a tentative discussion on the present and future of the anti-war movement has attracted scarcely 14 contributions. Any chance that people might direct their considerable scribbling energy in that direction?

Care/act

by Tony Fri Apr 07, 2006 15:29

Fintan Lane has a point - why the obsessive poring over minutiae?
However, I have come across the likes of Curious many times before. A typical manifestation was among the Healyites - "there are capitalist agents everywhere, especially those who disagree with us".
Curious him/her self needs to account for their prurient obsessions, not the people he/she attacks.
In any sane politics, people are judged by their activity.
The insinuations of Curious are...curious.
It's people like him/her whom I really distrust

by Fintan Lane Fri Apr 07, 2006 15:44

.

by Curious Fri Apr 07, 2006 17:02

"The insinuations of Curious are...curious. It's people like him/her whom I really distrust"

I'm suspicious, I'm not the suspect. Did you say you dont live in Ireland? Then you would not be aware of Mick the Greek and his machinations both past and present. As Allende said - "The gorillas are amongst us".

by Jon Fri Apr 07, 2006 17:52

Everybody on the left knows the IAWM is a front for the SWP. Respect is a front for the UK SWP.

Back when I was in college they used to pick C list celebs to front their campaigns, you know like actors, and singers and such like.
I guess they are more desperate these days.

Here's an interesting article by Oliver Kamm which likens the SWP to a fascist organisation. I think it is rather good.
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/respect_and_....html

Not sure why you all like Frank Connolly so much. He went to Columbia to help train up bombers. What's the moral difference between blowing up people and helping other people blow up people? Not much I would say. Not a person to be trusted.

by wat Fri Apr 07, 2006 17:57

i just read that article jon. its disgraceful. As if the SWP are anti semitic. that is bullshit and you no it. How about the fact that there founder Tony Cliff was jewish as well as lots of others.
and they are facist. Jesus youve really lost it. You may have disagreements with the SWP even massive ones but you know whose side they are on or at best certainly not akin in any way to the facists of this world.

by jon Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:06

Actually here's another article that is interesting, it comes from the other side, basically arguing that Fascism is just one strand of leftism.

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/amerfasc.html

by Richey Fri Apr 07, 2006 21:20

This thread had lost all interest until you posted a link to that garbage, Jon. Do you seriously expect anyone to be impressed by it? The latest generation of ex-leftists who have abandoned their principles and joined the imperialist camp since 9/11 are a wretched bunch, and the worst thing about them is the fact that they pretend their current position is consistent with left-wing tradition, when it is really a betrayal of everything the left stands for.

To maintain this pose, they have to smear the real left with shamelessly deceitful accusations of "anti-semitism" and all the rest of it. Just reading over that site, in a couple of articles I found half a dozen lies and non sequitors. Not surprising this slimy little hack has links to similar gutter dwellers like Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens. If you take that drivel seriously yourself, I pity you.

by Richey Fri Apr 07, 2006 21:29

Oh, and it's spelt "Colombia", Jon. Since you can't handle some basic spelling, not surprising you have so much trouble with understanding that no evidence has ever been presented against Frank Connolly whatsoever.

by Tank Girl Sat Apr 08, 2006 20:07

I dont think the SWP are Anti-Semitic but they do associate with Islamists who are Anti-Semitic. You have a nerve criticising others though. Anyone who supports womens rights in Iraq or Iran is called an Islamophobe by the SWP.

by Kieran O'Sullivan - IAWM Tue May 02, 2006 16:26 treasurer at irishantiwar dot org

I am the person who wrote that post in the IAWM Discussion forum and admittedly it is very bad tempered but it has the virtue of being true.

If anyone needs an example of why the IAWM got rid of the forum just read the discussion here.

I have posted to many discussion groups in my time (mostly technical discussions) and I will never understand two things.

1. The unwillingness of people to identify themselves properly. Making up a different name every time they post an article. Have the courage of your convictions PUT YOUR NAME ON IT!

2. The incredible lack of any kind of manners.

It is perfectly acceptable to be angry over an issue such as childish behaviour on web sites it is also acceptable to criticise organisations it is not however acceptable to make constant snide remarks and engage in personalised attacks one people.

One example is a post on the IAWM web site where one user made comments about what kind of people another user sleeps with.

Don't bother looking for the post I deleted it!

Kieran O'Sullivan
Treasurer IAWM

by Tank Girl Tue May 02, 2006 16:45

You are just reinforcing the view that the IAWM is dominated by the SWP. All websites get comments that are nasty. I even overdo it myself at times. Moderating is about getting rid of the nasty comments. The iAWM is supposed to be a mass organisation (if you believe the SWP) surely you have 2 - 3 impartial members who are prepared to take on moderating duties?

by Richey Tue May 02, 2006 18:30

Sigh! Tank girl seems to have trouble understanding that not everyone is a member of the SWP, nor are the sins of the SWP the most important thing in the world. I do not have "some nerve" criticising the likes of Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Oliver Kan/Kamm/however you spell it. According to these charming characters, anyone who criticises the bloody occupation of Iraq is a jihadist or a Saddam apologist or a Stalinist creep. I can't stand the SWP, but I'd much rather take my stand with them than with the Cruise missile "leftists" who can't bring themselves to say a word about the crimes of the US government.

by redjade Tue May 02, 2006 20:14

Kieran,

if you scroll aaaaaallllllll the way to the top of this thread you will read something I proposed and was subsequently ignored in all of the following furor....

Quoting myself: 'Why doesn't the IAWM just use Indymedia.ie's newswire for discussions?
That way they could focus on their website and .org matters and not 'monitoring childish behaviour.'
just a thought'

I agree. The IAWM website discussions are often rediculous, not useful and, to me anyway, boring. Which is why I haven't posted on that site in years.

Why should you and otheers in IAWM have to play referee to such 'discusions' when you could be working on the organisation itself? all true.

So why not transform IrishAntiWar.org into:
a) anyone can post events to the calender
b) anyone can propose links to a IAWM 'link blog'
(sending links to an email address)

▸ c) the 'link blog' would consist of Indymedia.ie posts regarding the War(s) or whatever. The links would follow to here, people would argue and so on like they have on IrishAntiWar.org but would have to follow Indymedia.ie's Editorial Guidelines { http://indymedia.ie/editorial }.

This way, IAWM is adding content and discussion to the larger activist community and the headache of playing 'censor' is handled by the Indymedia Troll Stompers™.

—————————

You could also do it in reverse (or mix the two)

Create a weekly 'blog' in the Other Press section of Indymedia.ie where people could add excerpts of news stories about the War(s) and then add that link to the IrishAntWar.org website's front page. This would have an added effect of bring people to the IrishAntWar.org website from Indymedia.ie - considering Indy .ie now gets 130,000+ unique visitors a month, this would be good exposure for the IAWM too, no?