Home  Login/Register  News   Events   Discussion   Resources   Photos   Contact   Links   Join 
IPSC Arms Trade Resource Center Iraq Occupation Watch Bring The Troops Home Now Palestine Monitor
United for Peace & Justice


The Irish Anti-War Movement : The Irish Anti-War Movement Discussion Forums : Irish Anti-War : One Thread
Notify me of new responses
I know that it's not very "anti-war" of me but am I the only one cheering the Iraqi military on against the US and UK? Iraq is a country battered by economic sanctions for the past 12 years, hammered in Gulf War 1 and is up against a military machine funded by a budget more than the entire world's defence budget put together. Yet they seem to be unimpressed with their "liberators", who are getting nastier by the day especially in their weapons deployment. The UK commander around Basra lamented the fact that he couldn't use "decisive" fire power to level the city to, eh, wipe out Saddams men but was perfectly happy to deploy cluster bombs, a particularily vile anti-personnel weapon. Why don't the Brits and Yanks go into the cities NOW and fight like men (if that's what they have to do) and stop hiding behind THEIR "weapons of mass destruction".

I've been reading the Arab press over the past few days and whilst they have no love for Saddam, the feeling on the Arab street is immense pride that SOMEONE is standing up to Yankee imperialism, and suffering appallingly as a result. In my opinion, the vast majority of Iraqis are fighting for INDEPENDENCE and not Saddam (minority includes Rep Guard and Fedayeen). Oppressed Palestinians, Saudis, Syrians, Egyptians etc should feel a little better and stronger and from now on REFUSE to be pushed around by the West. In the long run this might result not in peace "at any price" but some sort of FAIR PEACE.
-- Charles Monroe, March 27, 2003


well well well.... the mask is off. Mr. Monroe is delighted at the Iraqi's "resistance", the fact that their resistance means death of other human beings somehow escapes this peace loving person.

I am a "warmonger" and never have I written in such delight at the death of iraqi soldies as this guy's happiness of the death of coalition forces. what a two faced attitude.

not to mention - completely and utterly devoid of any grasp of reality. do Mr. Monroe doubts that the Coalition could wipe out any city with two MOAB bombs? he urges a blood bath in the cities with such glee and takes his info from the "free" Arab press.

now I am waiting for the response of the other peaceniks here.

Peace on you all
-- eyal kless, March 27, 2003

Charles, Really...

I'd like to see this from your point of view but I can't stick my head that far up my rear.
-- Johnny Crappie, March 27, 2003

There is a danger in protesting against anything that your actions will be used by others to further their (not your) cause. I am decidely "anti-war" in this particular time. Although the realist in me cannot subscribe to the idea that war is always unadvoidable. I am certainly not pro-Saddam. Yet I am aware that protesting against this military action may work for Saddams own ends (remaining in power).

On a truely emotional level I can understand the attraction cheering on an underdog has, until I get past the sound bytes of Arab and Western media and know this is no football game, people are dying. I do understand the sense of solidarity the Arab world feels for the Iraqi people and they perhaps have a right to feel hope at an "Arab" resistance to western forces. But we of the west who oppose this war should (my opinion only!)be careful in applauding and cheering any side in this conflict. My own line of thinking which I do not let have reign because of the actual consequences of war are along the lines of: if the US war machine meets with difficulty and is unable to advance, this might give pause to the US administration in planning its next conquest.

Because this line of abstract thought means in reality the death of more American and UK soldiers, I consign it to the "not good thinking" category and try to stay clear about what this opposition is about.

Besides, such sentiments that cheer on the "enemy" is only going to work for the Pro-war crowd as they point out that it really is all black and white and we are just Saddam apologists and traitors. Such expression for the "enemy" in the US during the Vietnam protests has created such a backlash that now we have to contend with "support the troops" rallys. We do not wish to alienate any who are against the war, cheering on the Iraqis will deeply offend many who might otherwise be against this action.

Don't do it!
-- Gary Nihsen, March 27, 2003

OK, all fair responses, let's NOT cheer on any form of violence. Probably, you're right and I'm wrong, maybe the best solution is a quick Coalition victory, installation of US "temporary" military Government and the Iraqi people receive all oil revenues and singing and dancing in the streets. Looks like I'll never get me head out of me arse now.

(What were they thinking when they moved their tanks out into the open yesterday?)
-- Charles Monroe, March 27, 2003

Well I suppose on this issue you have to decide whether or not you are against this war or against all wars. If you are a pacifist then you must come up with a real plan of action to attack repression by non-violent means. I say if you are not prepared to this go away.
-- Laurence Vize, March 27, 2003


"I know that it's not very "anti-war" of me but am I the only one cheering the Iraqi military on against the US and UK?"

I certainly hope so, Charles. War is destructive, no matter whence it emanates. How dare you be so disgusting and callous. Your comments are disgraceful and irresponsible.

The "coalition" forces are killing their colleagues, Iraqi civillians, non-Iraqi civillians, Iraqi forces, and who knows who else. The Iraqi forces are killing their colleagues, Iraqi civillians, (at least attempting to kill) non-Iraqi civillians, "coalition" forces, and who knows who else.

War benefits no-one, and how could you possibly condone it in any way?

I suggest you withdraw your comments, or, if you insist on standing over them, you should be ashamed of yourself.
-- Joan O'Connell, March 27, 2003

If the option is Stalin or Hitler, then I suggest we opt for Stalin again.

You yourself must decide whether Bush is Stalin or Hitler. Personally I am of the opinion that Baghdad is the next Stalingrad and the so called "koalition" blasting everything in its path is an assembly of modern high tech low life Nazis.

T Dillon
-- Tony Dillon, March 28, 2003

What planet did Joan beam down from. 2 possibilities now that the war has started: 1/ Iraqis roll over, Saddam falls, singing and dancing in the streets (and corridors of Haliburton and Steve Doring Services of America, who have just started their contract at Umm Qasr port despite attempts by the poor deluded Brits that the locals should run it) 2/ Iraqis fight hard, massive civilian casualties, mounting coalition losses (ratio maybe like Vietnam perhaps 200 or so Iraqis to everyone coalition troop) BUT who knows what also could happen? Arabs unite? Europe unites and builds credible defence against the US? The US backs off unilateralism and best of all, Bush and Blair get fired out.

I unreservedly withdraw my "cheering" on the Iraqis bit BUT this joke of a movement should be focus on discussing how to avoid the NEXT war. If there is no "Eurasia" to the US's "Oceania", better look forward to an expanding Pax Americana where wars on the periphery of the Empire will be become common place.

Joan, when you're going back to K-Pax, please take me with you.
-- Charles Monroe, March 28, 2003

Ah, argument ad hominem, the refuge of those whose thoughts have failed. Some of the other points you make, however, I do agree with.

Your "possiblities", though permeated with a facetious tone, are nonetheless comprehensible.

That is, in that 'certain' companies will revel in their newly acquired contracts, while their directors roll in oodles of dollars like pigs in shit; and that countless lives will be lost as a result of this conflict.

And also that war is unpredictable - who knows indeed what else could happen. I, however, cannot support any aspect of a war on the basis that something (good or bad) *might* happen.

What I would support, like you Charles, is finding ways to avoid war in the future. However, rather than resort to the sort of anarchy to which Bush and Blair now advocate, and rather than revert to Cold War-type superpower standoffs, I favour maintaining an international legal order, as envisaged after each of the world wars.

It is possible to attain order without resorting to war, and so it is also possible to prevent Pax Americana and its empire.

Finally, I'm glad that you withdrew your comments of support for one of the warring sides in this invasion (not, of course, that any gladness of mine should have any bearing on you).
-- Joan O'Connell, March 28, 2003

which leads me to a question I was dying to ask -

what do you think Blair is doing this for. you all have mastered the BushBashin techniques but here is a PM who has said what he believes and than went for it. dont tell me he is Bush Lapdog or that GB is getting oil money. I think you guys are a bit stuck on this one so I am ready to listen. almost a 1 of the forces on the ground are British.
-- eyal kless, March 29, 2003

Dear eyal, Blair hopes to get a piece of the pie. Blair hopes to regain British power in the world by riding on the coattails of the last super power. And that is working already in people's minds; it is afterall "Bush and Blair" now. Blair has obviously aligned himself in the coming standoff of Europe vs. America on the Anglo-American side. In doing so he has weakend the EU and made his own power base for future conflicts within the EU.

He is placing his bet on the side of the US$.
-- Gary Nihsen, March 29, 2003

Mr Bean, Bush and Blair.


Tony blair and paedophilia

Wed, Mar 19 2003, 5:07pm

inside zogs british satrap regime Blair's Protection of Elite Paedophile Rings Spells the End For His Career Exclusive to Propaganda Matrix.com by Mike James in Frankfurt: March 11 2003 NATO boss and Blair government insider Lord Robertson has threatened to sue Scotland's leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun licence for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine paedophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite.

On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself, shattering forever the idyllic 13th century Scottish town of Dunblane.

The controversy is certain to topple the Blair government, which has already issued a D-Notice to gag the press from revealing the names of known paedophiles within the British executive, including at least two senior ministers; and the case highlights the government's antipathy toward the Sunday Herald and its brand of independent journalism that has, among other things, exposed the role played by the domestic security agency, MI5, in helping the IRA to carry out terrorist atrocities.

As reported by this journalist last month at Propaganda Matrix and Counter Punch, and by the Sunday Herald's Home Affairs Editor, Neil Mackay, the British intelligence services are actively engaged in preventing any further child sex revelations that could incite further hostility to an already unpopular Prime Minister and destroy the morale of troops set to invade Iraq. An intelligence officer told Mackay that "a 'rolling' Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if arrests occur."

Some commentators, mindful that one of Tony Blair's closest confidante's is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair's repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the Dunblane massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a 100-year secrecy order. Lord Cullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a paedophile, had obtained a firearms licence for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local Labour luminary George Robertson and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy's club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

The rumours and allegations concerning Lord Robertson's ties to Hamilton, and the possibility that the American intelligence services may be blackmailing Tony Blair into continued support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, have been given fire by internet investigator and intelligence expert Michael Keaney:

"An additional, and potentially explosive, aspect of US leverage over Blair is the FBI's investigation of users of child porn websites which has already claimed a number of high profile scalps. [....] The biggest two fish that come to mind are indeed high profile: firstly there is George Robertson, who today has announced that he will step down as NATO Secretary General after four years and two months in the job. Were he to be fingered the fall out would be spectacular but short-lived -- he's been a long time out of the cabinet and is sufficiently distant from Tony to be regarded as not requiring the presentational finesse of a "rolling" Cabinet committee, whatever that might be. However, our second candidate is most certainly very closely identified with the prime minister, and retains a high profile [and] continues to operate at a very high level indeed, whether in Europe, Japan, or even the Middle East."

"Peter Mandelson began political life as a member of the Communist Party, soon "seeing the light" and instead getting involved with the CIA/MI6-financed Socialist International youth wing and the Labour Party, through which he rose in parallel with his experience working at London Weekend Television with other A-list regulars like John Birt and Michael Maclay, now public mouthpiece of Hakluyt, the private sector spook outfit run by a bunch of "ex" MI6 types including the widow of ex-Labour leader John Smith. This sort of background and connections makes Mandelson very useful in the sort of corridors-and-alleyways diplomacy and networking that is the real substance of international relations and intelligence gathering. [....] If Mandelson is indeed the suspect, then the damage this could cause may fatally wound Blair."

"An interesting development that may, or may not, be related to this, is the publication of an article in last Sunday's Observer by David Aaronovitch. He and Mandelson are longtime friends, having been together in the Communist Party and at London Weekend TV. Aaronovitch was, until recently, a leading political commentator for the Independent, on whose "international advisory board" (the standard vanity collection of august persons put together for the ego of newspaper proprietors like Tony O'Reilly and Conrad Black) sits Peter Mandelson."

"Since switching to the Guardian Media Group at the beginning of this year or thereabouts, Aaronovitch authored an article on child abuse in which he pleads for common sense to prevail, rather than the lynch mob: 'Strangely I trust the police to act sensibly (because, like the analysts, they've seen it all): it's the rest of us I worry about.'" "That much depends upon the behaviour of the US Justice Department, which ultimately has responsibility for the investigation, must be a worry for Blair. One need only imagine how this must colour the views of John Ashcroft regarding the moral fibre of British cabinet ministers and the laxity of the prime minister who chose them in the first place. How easy would it be for the suspect to be named in a story that miraculously surfaced outside of the UK (thereby circumventing the D Notice and leading potentially to a re-run of the Spycatcher fiasco of 1987)?

"Whoever is on the suspects' list, we can see that already this 'rolling' cabinet committee is busy leaking stories that serve at least to delay the shock of the inevitable, eventual revelation, buying valuable time if nothing else. Thus you can depend on the Guardian to save the day for Tony, and here's some helpful tip-offs courtesy of MI6 that help to distract from what's really going on, whilst bolstering the reputation for integrity and financial propriety that has marked Blair's dealings with businesspeople like Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Desmond, Lakshmi Mittal, etc." "I have come to the considered conclusion," says a correspondent of Keaney, William Palfreman, "that the events surrounding the Dunblane massacre, and the subsequent submissions to the Cullen enquiry that have been put under to 100 years of secrecy, far out weigh in political significance issues such as our opposition to the EU [and] what it entails. It is inconceivable that T Blair, Jack Straw [and] Gordon Brown can survive in office as this matter becomes known. It totally undermines the Labour government, and could easily be a case of the Queen feeling she has to use reserve powers to call an emergency general election, such would be the loss of confidence."

"This scandal is far more important that anything that has happened here in living memory, in fact I can think of no parallel for it. It certainly pisses all over anything that happened to Kennedy or was done by Nixon. I am surprised, given the gravity of this matter, that [an] attempt has yet to be made on his life, for surely we are dealing with desperate people here. It also explains a few strange things, such as just why T Blair & co. were so keen to ban all handguns, and why such obviously talentless nobodies like George Robertson have risen from being backbench nobodies a couple of years ago to Defence Secretary, and now Secretary-General of Nato."

"[....] Now where in this is there a national security risk so great, that documents part of the public enquiry are now state secrets to be held for 100 years? Funny kind of public enquiry. Why, when Thomas Hamilton's application for a gun licence was turned down, due to him being regarded as a man of unsound character [and] him being the object of several paedophilia investigations, did his MP, our friend George Robertson (now Lord Robertson, Secretary-General of NATO), write him a glowing character reference, and personally see to it that his application was successful, when he knew the grounds for the original refusal were because he was suspected of procuring boys for sexual services?"

"Or take a certain boat seized on Loch Ness [Loch Lomond] by the Strathclyde Police. It is a very rare thing for assets to be seized in the UK, as [there] are no asset-forfeiture laws. When it does happen, there is normally a trial at least, with things only being seized if they are proven to be bought with money proven to be consequence of a proven crime. Even then, they are sold by public auction. How come, then, was this very valuable boat sold for the tiny sum of £5000, without an auction, to none other than our friend Thomas Hamilton, a man of no financial means whatsoever, nor a sailor, nor lived anywhere near any open water. Why did not the boats owners complain about having their property stolen from them in this manner? I can only conclude because it was being used for some very serious criminal activity, and those on board were merely glad to escape prosecution. Also, it seems rather odd in such circumstances that not only were the owners happy to avoid prosecution enough to lose a valuable boat, but that the Strathclyde Police were not willing to prosecute. And yet, after these improbable events, it wound up in none other than our friend Hamilton's hands. Could he have been a blackmailer as well as a paedophile?"

"But the main thing is what might explain sections of the public enquiry are now under the hundred year rule. There are only three levels of secrecy in the UK for state secrets, the 30 year rule, the 80 year rule and the 100 year rule. Normal secrets, like Cabinet discussions, government papers, espionage, all that, are under the 30 year rule. Only a very small number of things ever reached the 80 year rule, particularly events in the Sudan with Kitchener in 1902, where it seems that an act of genocide was committed, and some things that happened 1914-18, as well as things like potential peace negotiations in 1941, and just about everything to do with the IRA (after all, people are still alive after 30 years) come under the 80 year rule. Of them, the darkest of state secrets, when the events of '02 were getting a bit close to their limit for comfort, a further class of secrets was created to last a hundred years, and tiny number of things were put in it - e.g. Kitchener in '02, some World War I things."

But none of these things can be said to apply to Dunblane. That was a case of a common criminal [and] sexual pervert committing some fairly ordinary murders, of a kind that happen from time to time. Even if a backbench Labour MP was implicated, or may have been involved in a large paedophile ring in Scotland, that is not a matter of vital national importance. You have a prosecution, there is a bit of a scandal, everyone is disgusted and one MP goes to prison. Big deal: such things happen. You certainly would not make such information a state secret just to save one unnamed backbench nobody's miserable neck. Governments simply don't go to such extreme lengths to save nobodies - power broking just doesn't work like that. There must be issues of profound national importance working here, and I put it to you that anything that involves certain events in Scotland is more likely to be someone of cabinet level than anything else.

If the physiologically flawed [although Thomas Hamilton was these were the words of Tony Blair when speaking of Gordon Brown] Thomas Hamilton was the centre of a paedophile ring in Scotland that procured boys to people of the amongst the highest rank, and Tony Blair [and] Jack Straw covered this up by the Official Secrets Act (They would do the covering, as both the Prime Minister's [and] Home Secretary's permission is needed to put some something under the 100 year rule.) it is hard to see how they or their close colleges could possibly remain in office, even if they were never inclined to such flawed behaviour themselves. The government would fall."

That prospect seems to be energising a government now considered to be fighting for its political life, even to the extent of killing the review process by which some of the banned sections of the Cullen Report would be made public, arguing that freedom of information would somehow harm other abused children in Dunblane. In a recent interview with the Guardian newspaper, Michael Matheson, the Scottish National Party's shadow deputy justice minister, said: "There are more documents covered by the 100-year rule than this police report. Some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with children. We need to look at why such a lengthy ban has been imposed on them. I have been contacted by a number of families affected by the tragedy who are anxious to ensure this information becomes public. And so far we have no guarantee that it will. We only have a review."

"It is important we make available, if it is at all possible, any information that is available about people in the public eye," said the Scottish first minister, Jack McConnell. When Tony Blair took office following a landslide victory in 1997, few commentators would have suggested that this man would be willing to drag his country into a war of unjustified aggression against a people that have done no harm to the British public. Nor would anyone have surmised that a Labour government would hitch its political fortunes to a shabby cabal of fanatical neoconservative Zionists working to make real their much-touted biblical Armageddon. And no one could have predicted that Blair's nominally "Christian" administration would transform itself into a licentious club of flamboyant homosexual cruisers and out-of-control paedophiles.

But it is now becoming shockingly clear that the slavish adherence of Tony Blair and Jack Straw to the Bush line on Iraq may have less to do with principled arguments, and much more to do with the fear of CIA and FBI revelations that would make them two of the most hated politicians in modern British political history. There is only one way out for Tony Blair - resign. (The British Labour government, 1997-2003. Rest In Peace.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael James is a British freelance journalist and translator, resident in Germany for over 11 years.


Robertson considers action over web allegation


Alleged Pedophiles at Helm of Britain's War Machine


Call to lift veil of secrecy over Dunblane


MP aide facing porn charge


Child porn arrests 'too slow'


Don't look now

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,877634,00.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


add your comments



by silo Wed, Mar 19 2003, 5:35pm

y'know, sometimes it gets *really* crazy around here. propaganda?

by Evil Dave Wed, Mar 19 2003, 7:48pm

The name of your website doesn't inspire confidence in the reader add your comments

-- Tony Dillon, March 29, 2003

what $? what $?

is Britain getting money for this? do you think Blair needs this headace? I mean you want to think GWB is stupid or a puppet - well , ok. but Blair is not Bush. and I am not sure this war is about america vs europe or that Blair really gives a damn about it if it was.
-- eyal kless, March 30, 2003

Eyal, you should read some of Bush's comments about Europe. He thinks anyone not from Texas is a foreigner.

We know Bush has his strings pulled. Maybe Blair is getting some of the same questioning since he has been called by some of his own people as "Bushes lap dog." That sounds a lot like puppet to me.
-- Sharon White, March 30, 2003

Notify me of new responses