IAWM condem direct actionists as thugs and vandals?

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday June 23, 2004 19:54

by Benjamin - Galway Grassroots (personal capacity)

IAWM/SWP election candidate calls anti-war activists 'thugs and vandals'.

“The elderly are also concerned about riots. Activists have done a lot of damage to the anti-war movement with their action at Shannon airport. Some support has dropped off.
People saw what the thugs and vandals did but the Irish Anti-War Movement does not support direct action. We believe in peaceful means”
-Damien Wise, SWP candidate in local elections and chair of recent IAWM meeting in Shannon, in the Sunday People, this could be a media misrepresentation or it could be in line with previous statements coming from prominent people within IAWM/NGO Peace Alliance Circles. An explanation is required.

What violent action took place in Shannon?

What riots?

How do non-violent actions against war constitute violence?

Why is the IAWM colluding with the state/media game of good protestors versus bad protestors?

Why is the IAWM using the media to condem other anti-war activists?

Why doesn't the IAWM support non-violent direct action - the only thing which has had any practical impact on military re-fueling at Shannon (3 charter companies carrying troops pulling out in early 2003).

Does the IAWM dissasociate itself from the words attributed to Damien Wise by the media?