In response to an airshow of warplanes in Galway Ireland a group of anti-war activists staged a protest. Below is part of the discussion on Indymedia Ireland following a posting of the event.
I take responsibility for comments published under my own name below.
by Drbinoche
Sun Jul 13, 2003 14:57
by Justin Morahan Mon Jul 14, 2003 02:04
by Drbinoche Tue Jul 15, 2003 01:09
by Observer Tue Jul 15, 2003 03:44
by Justin Morahan Tue Jul 15, 2003 09:36
by Justin Morahan Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:53
by Observer Tue Jul 15, 2003 23:37
by Justin Morahan Wed Jul 16, 2003 01:35
by Drbinoche Thu Jul 17, 2003 00:36
by Justin Morahan Thu Jul 17, 2003 09:30
by Drbinoche Sat Jul 19, 2003 14:02
by Justin Morahan Sun Jul 20, 2003 09:42
by Drbinoche Mon Jul 21, 2003 00:52
by Justin Morahan Mon Jul 21, 2003 16:44
I take responsibility for comments published under my own name below.
by Drbinoche Sun Jul 13, 2003 14:57
War
is definitely an horrific event. War is good for noone, it should never
happen, but it does. You see the difference between things that should
not happen and things that won't happen, are that you have to be
prepared for the stuff that should never happen. In war everyone loses,
that is a fact. There is never a clear winner, because there are no
winners, but wars happen and unless the human race can somehow magically
remove the concept of war from our brains, then war will continue to
happen. The concept of brute force is still a major factor in the human
brain and as such wars will continue to happen. It is imperative that
you work to remove the concept, but it would be foolish to not maintain a
level of protection should your efforts fail. Armed forces are needed
to maintain the buffer zone of protection.
Advertising for army posts by any means is basically no different than advertising for other jobs. The only difference is that people in the army have an obligation to defend their nations with all necessary force. If the planes on Sunday were armed or were doing practice runs with live ammo, I would be offended, and slightly worried as it would lead to the ability of a mishap happening and thus innocent people being put in danger. But the planes were not armed or carrying out bombing runs or strafing runs, they were flying and doing aerobatics. No real difference than watching a biplane do it, except a biplane can never match a Tornado for speed.
I can understand your point of view and I do share it to an extent, but I am also aware that we need to be protected and you need level-headed people to be
behind the guns or else bad shit happens. Fast
Advertising for army posts by any means is basically no different than advertising for other jobs. The only difference is that people in the army have an obligation to defend their nations with all necessary force. If the planes on Sunday were armed or were doing practice runs with live ammo, I would be offended, and slightly worried as it would lead to the ability of a mishap happening and thus innocent people being put in danger. But the planes were not armed or carrying out bombing runs or strafing runs, they were flying and doing aerobatics. No real difference than watching a biplane do it, except a biplane can never match a Tornado for speed.
I can understand your point of view and I do share it to an extent, but I am also aware that we need to be protected and you need level-headed people to be
behind the guns or else bad shit happens. Fast
by Justin Morahan Mon Jul 14, 2003 02:04
Belated reply to Frank
Yes I joined the FCA as a young man and learned the first steps of pacifism as I paused for the bobbing cardboard man to pop up from the pits (I think they were called) on the range in Athlone. Hit the cardboard man's head in the distance for success, miss it and fail the test.
I sensed that I was being trained to kill real men at the shout of a "superior officer".
You accuse me of labelling all soldiers as murderers or potential murderers. If you read me again, you will see that I never used the term "murderer" or "potential murderer". I made the very simple point that all soldiers are trained to kill other human beings - and yes , in cold blood. For once the order is given, they must obey.
I never judge what is wrong for an individual's conscience in self-defence or defence of a comrade. What I think is wrong is that hordes of people are trained to act like robots and use killing as their main defence. Once brainwashed in an army, an individual believes that all the actions condoned by the army are right and proper actions.
"Until mankind reaches some higher plane of thought and eradicates violence there will be a need for a Defence Force", you say. - Now you're talking! You have touched the heart of the matter
But how do we begin to get mankind to reach that higher plane?
Maybe by each one of us deciding for oneself that "I will not kill a fellow human being". This statement a serving soldier cannot make. He or she must obey orders.
Until people realise that non-violence is preferable to violence for every human and until the idea of non-violence spreads into every heart and mind in veery home and corner of the world, mankind and womankind cannot reach that higher plane you write about so well.
To encourage the end of armies that are trained to kill humans is not to insult those who have joined armies with the best intentions. It is not to disparage what they believe (but I do not believe) to be "sterling service".
So let us get one thing straight: the clothes or physical appearance of the proponents of an idea have absolutely no bearing at all on the value of the idea. Non-violent people are beautiful people no matter how they dress. Among them are many people who have served like you in armies but who have become converted to attempt to reach "the higher plane".
Finally, should I, as an individual, go around the world searching out nasty dictators, torturers, unelected leaders, unjust leaders, - and allow myself to kill other humans so as to eradicate them?
My conscience says No, I should not. And if my conscience says it's wrong for me, then it's also wrong for me to ask others to do it on my behalf. You may say that this is of little help to the people being attacked by the militia. That's true. But who are the militia in the first place? They are armies trained to kill on the orders of their superiors. Which brings me back to the idea of getting rid of the notion of killing armies and the "necessity" for them.
Love and peace and thank you for writing
Yes I joined the FCA as a young man and learned the first steps of pacifism as I paused for the bobbing cardboard man to pop up from the pits (I think they were called) on the range in Athlone. Hit the cardboard man's head in the distance for success, miss it and fail the test.
I sensed that I was being trained to kill real men at the shout of a "superior officer".
You accuse me of labelling all soldiers as murderers or potential murderers. If you read me again, you will see that I never used the term "murderer" or "potential murderer". I made the very simple point that all soldiers are trained to kill other human beings - and yes , in cold blood. For once the order is given, they must obey.
I never judge what is wrong for an individual's conscience in self-defence or defence of a comrade. What I think is wrong is that hordes of people are trained to act like robots and use killing as their main defence. Once brainwashed in an army, an individual believes that all the actions condoned by the army are right and proper actions.
"Until mankind reaches some higher plane of thought and eradicates violence there will be a need for a Defence Force", you say. - Now you're talking! You have touched the heart of the matter
But how do we begin to get mankind to reach that higher plane?
Maybe by each one of us deciding for oneself that "I will not kill a fellow human being". This statement a serving soldier cannot make. He or she must obey orders.
Until people realise that non-violence is preferable to violence for every human and until the idea of non-violence spreads into every heart and mind in veery home and corner of the world, mankind and womankind cannot reach that higher plane you write about so well.
To encourage the end of armies that are trained to kill humans is not to insult those who have joined armies with the best intentions. It is not to disparage what they believe (but I do not believe) to be "sterling service".
So let us get one thing straight: the clothes or physical appearance of the proponents of an idea have absolutely no bearing at all on the value of the idea. Non-violent people are beautiful people no matter how they dress. Among them are many people who have served like you in armies but who have become converted to attempt to reach "the higher plane".
Finally, should I, as an individual, go around the world searching out nasty dictators, torturers, unelected leaders, unjust leaders, - and allow myself to kill other humans so as to eradicate them?
My conscience says No, I should not. And if my conscience says it's wrong for me, then it's also wrong for me to ask others to do it on my behalf. You may say that this is of little help to the people being attacked by the militia. That's true. But who are the militia in the first place? They are armies trained to kill on the orders of their superiors. Which brings me back to the idea of getting rid of the notion of killing armies and the "necessity" for them.
Love and peace and thank you for writing
by Drbinoche Tue Jul 15, 2003 01:09
Its
true and air show accident could happen in Salthill next year. But it
could also happen that at the next Funderland one of the rides could
crash or break, so would you then suggest that we stop having funderland
every year. I am not pulling the piss or trying to be offensive, but
thats the logical step onwards.
Also the plane that crashed was a replica of the Spirit of St Louis, a non-military aircraft. So its not just military aircraft that come down or crash, however, they do travel faster and so can cause more deaths when they hit the ground as was evident when the two Su-27s came down in the Ukraine last year and killed I believe nearly a 100 people.
The pilot was killed in this accident, but a pilot could be killed just lfying his aircraft if a strong wind catches him unexpectedly or if the plane experiences a malfunction.
Also the plane that crashed was a replica of the Spirit of St Louis, a non-military aircraft. So its not just military aircraft that come down or crash, however, they do travel faster and so can cause more deaths when they hit the ground as was evident when the two Su-27s came down in the Ukraine last year and killed I believe nearly a 100 people.
The pilot was killed in this accident, but a pilot could be killed just lfying his aircraft if a strong wind catches him unexpectedly or if the plane experiences a malfunction.
by Observer Tue Jul 15, 2003 03:44
I
was there and enjoyed the airshow, which is what it was. That is an
airshow a display of aeroplanes, nothing more nothing less. Not an
airpower demonstration.
I noted you protestors shouting 'shame' at each pass of the Red Arrows. You may have noticed the crowd loudly cheering and applauding the Reds in return. What you no doubt failed to notice was that as soon as you gave up and marched away. The crowd stopped cheering and applauding and went back to the usual oohs and aahs that accompany the Red Arrows at any airshow.
They were trying to drown you out ladies and gentlemen. No one was listening to you. Nobody really cares what you think anymore. People came out against the war in Iraq because they were convinced it was wrong.
Do not delude yourselves into thinking there is widespread mainstream support for your point of view. There isn't. Enjoy your cause though, everyone needs a hobby.
I noted you protestors shouting 'shame' at each pass of the Red Arrows. You may have noticed the crowd loudly cheering and applauding the Reds in return. What you no doubt failed to notice was that as soon as you gave up and marched away. The crowd stopped cheering and applauding and went back to the usual oohs and aahs that accompany the Red Arrows at any airshow.
They were trying to drown you out ladies and gentlemen. No one was listening to you. Nobody really cares what you think anymore. People came out against the war in Iraq because they were convinced it was wrong.
Do not delude yourselves into thinking there is widespread mainstream support for your point of view. There isn't. Enjoy your cause though, everyone needs a hobby.
by Justin Morahan Tue Jul 15, 2003 09:36
To
Observer: I'm sure that a lot of people would have come out to see
Nazi airshows and enjoyed the spectacle for its appearance without
realizing that it was part of a propaganda campaign for Hitler's wars
by Justin Morahan Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:53
I
am not ignoring your responses some of which have already been
forcefully answered by Phuq Hedd. I agree with a lot of what you say in
your last piece entitled "War" especially that war is horrific, should
never happen, has no winners.
I'm very glad that you feel it imperative to remove the concept of war but sorry you still believe that the measure of protection we need in the meantime must be a defence force which is trained to kill.
No matter how level-headed the people behind the guns, war will still be horrific - for the people facing the guns (or lying beneath the bombs) and also, given time, for the level-headed soldiers or pilots themselves when they realize what they have been forced to do.
Michael Bermingham has been dragged into this - by me, I admit - and you have indulged yourself in a little fun at the idea of your tearing up his clothes etc because you don't agree with him. You know of course that there is an essential difference between Michael Bermingham talking peacefully in a hotel about the situation in Iraq, unsponsored by any foreign war machine or power, and Bertie Ahern talking to George Bush about the latter's upcoming war in Iraq and allowing Mr Bush, in your name and mine, the right to use Irish soil to accommodate War.
And remember what you yourself have said: War is horrific, should never happen, has no winners. Is it any wonder people are outraged? What price the damage to an American plane in Shannon compared to the loss of even one limb of an innocent child in his or her home country of Iraq.
The actions, first of Mary Kelly, and later of the five Catholic Workers, Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly, were powerful reminders of the difference in values between property and human life. When our Government caved into the Bush pressure - as did most other Governments in the now discredited UN - these brave and good people put their own lives and freedom on the line to shout NO in a very powerful and dramatic manner. They carried no weapons to defend themselves. Michael Bermingham showed similar courage in going to Iraq as a human shield - he put his life in danger and carried no guns. Is there no respect for his kind of bravery?
When he dies (and I hope the day is very far from us) will there be folded flags from the nation, will the nation put on a show of reverence to tell young people "Here is a person you should admire".
The nation does this for soldiers. Why?
Will there be a National Day to mourn the Peace Dead?
There is one for the War Dead. Why?
You poked fun at the idea of a pacifist staying in Iraq so that, as you put it, all of the people would rise up with all of their weapons and take on the 300000+ soldiers loyal to Saddam". Now you know well that this is rubbish. A pacifist never hopes that soldiers will "rise up with all their weapons". That is war, remember. And there are no winners in war.
People who oppose war, who favour non-violence, have few structures and less money to achieve the results they wish for. In this age of war mongers, war heroes, war films, war propagandists, war videos, war books, war museums, war advertising, war games, their chances of success are pretty small. But they can still bear witness.
Franz Jaggerstatter didn't change the Austrian or German people by refusing to take a part - even a civilian part - in Hitler's war machine. He wasn't a pacifist, just a conscientious objector to that particular war because he believed that, according to his Catholic principles, it wasn't a "just war". He was executed for his refusal to serve. Now that even you believe that Hitler was wrong, do you not wonder why the name of Franz Jaggerstatter has not been honoured throughout the free world?
Although forgotten by many, his name still lives on among war resisters.
In times to come so will the names of Mary Kelly, Ciaron O'Reilly, Damien Moran, Karen Fallon, Nuin Dunlop, Deirdre Clancy and Michael Bermingham. You can poke as much fun at them as you like. They ahve already made a difference. They have put war itself on trial. But you are entitled to your bit of fun.
At any rate, it's good (thanks to Indymedia) that we can share our very different ideas with each other so quickly and, I hope, with respect. I believe in the Gandhian principle of showing respect for your adversary.
Incidentally, I do mourn the dead US soldiers and the dead British soldiers and would mourn the untimely death of George Bush if it were to happen. All are the products of a culture of war in which they have become totally immersed.
I must say that I would have to work on my sorrow for Mr Bush and would not mourn his death with the same intensity as others. And while he is alive I will not desist from opposing his wars wherever they happen
Why don't you come along to Michael's talk tonight (without a scissors!)
I know you will be impressed by his honesty, sincerity and goodness.
And I'm sure if you meet the Shannon six, you may also be more impressed with what they have to say than you might ever imagine. Why not give it a try?
Love and Peace.
I'm very glad that you feel it imperative to remove the concept of war but sorry you still believe that the measure of protection we need in the meantime must be a defence force which is trained to kill.
No matter how level-headed the people behind the guns, war will still be horrific - for the people facing the guns (or lying beneath the bombs) and also, given time, for the level-headed soldiers or pilots themselves when they realize what they have been forced to do.
Michael Bermingham has been dragged into this - by me, I admit - and you have indulged yourself in a little fun at the idea of your tearing up his clothes etc because you don't agree with him. You know of course that there is an essential difference between Michael Bermingham talking peacefully in a hotel about the situation in Iraq, unsponsored by any foreign war machine or power, and Bertie Ahern talking to George Bush about the latter's upcoming war in Iraq and allowing Mr Bush, in your name and mine, the right to use Irish soil to accommodate War.
And remember what you yourself have said: War is horrific, should never happen, has no winners. Is it any wonder people are outraged? What price the damage to an American plane in Shannon compared to the loss of even one limb of an innocent child in his or her home country of Iraq.
The actions, first of Mary Kelly, and later of the five Catholic Workers, Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly, were powerful reminders of the difference in values between property and human life. When our Government caved into the Bush pressure - as did most other Governments in the now discredited UN - these brave and good people put their own lives and freedom on the line to shout NO in a very powerful and dramatic manner. They carried no weapons to defend themselves. Michael Bermingham showed similar courage in going to Iraq as a human shield - he put his life in danger and carried no guns. Is there no respect for his kind of bravery?
When he dies (and I hope the day is very far from us) will there be folded flags from the nation, will the nation put on a show of reverence to tell young people "Here is a person you should admire".
The nation does this for soldiers. Why?
Will there be a National Day to mourn the Peace Dead?
There is one for the War Dead. Why?
You poked fun at the idea of a pacifist staying in Iraq so that, as you put it, all of the people would rise up with all of their weapons and take on the 300000+ soldiers loyal to Saddam". Now you know well that this is rubbish. A pacifist never hopes that soldiers will "rise up with all their weapons". That is war, remember. And there are no winners in war.
People who oppose war, who favour non-violence, have few structures and less money to achieve the results they wish for. In this age of war mongers, war heroes, war films, war propagandists, war videos, war books, war museums, war advertising, war games, their chances of success are pretty small. But they can still bear witness.
Franz Jaggerstatter didn't change the Austrian or German people by refusing to take a part - even a civilian part - in Hitler's war machine. He wasn't a pacifist, just a conscientious objector to that particular war because he believed that, according to his Catholic principles, it wasn't a "just war". He was executed for his refusal to serve. Now that even you believe that Hitler was wrong, do you not wonder why the name of Franz Jaggerstatter has not been honoured throughout the free world?
Although forgotten by many, his name still lives on among war resisters.
In times to come so will the names of Mary Kelly, Ciaron O'Reilly, Damien Moran, Karen Fallon, Nuin Dunlop, Deirdre Clancy and Michael Bermingham. You can poke as much fun at them as you like. They ahve already made a difference. They have put war itself on trial. But you are entitled to your bit of fun.
At any rate, it's good (thanks to Indymedia) that we can share our very different ideas with each other so quickly and, I hope, with respect. I believe in the Gandhian principle of showing respect for your adversary.
Incidentally, I do mourn the dead US soldiers and the dead British soldiers and would mourn the untimely death of George Bush if it were to happen. All are the products of a culture of war in which they have become totally immersed.
I must say that I would have to work on my sorrow for Mr Bush and would not mourn his death with the same intensity as others. And while he is alive I will not desist from opposing his wars wherever they happen
Why don't you come along to Michael's talk tonight (without a scissors!)
I know you will be impressed by his honesty, sincerity and goodness.
And I'm sure if you meet the Shannon six, you may also be more impressed with what they have to say than you might ever imagine. Why not give it a try?
Love and Peace.
by Observer Tue Jul 15, 2003 23:37
"To
Observer: I'm sure that a lot of people would have come out to see Nazi
airshows and enjoyed the spectacle for its appearance without realizing
that it was part of a propaganda campaign for Hitler's wars"
Well Justin, Being just a little glib aren't we?
Exactly what does that have to do with what I said? Just how does a little airshow organized by a few enthusiasts in a seaside town relate to Hitler's Nazis. Perhaps your sense of proportion needs adjusting. Now that you've brought it up perhaps I might point out that the predecessors of the RAF pilots your friends booed so enthusiastically stopped Hitler in his tracks in 1940 during the Battle of Britain and later those nasty Americans helped push him back to his bunker. Pacifism, you see only goes so far in protecting freedom. But then, perhaps freedom is not high on your agenda.
Well Justin, Being just a little glib aren't we?
Exactly what does that have to do with what I said? Just how does a little airshow organized by a few enthusiasts in a seaside town relate to Hitler's Nazis. Perhaps your sense of proportion needs adjusting. Now that you've brought it up perhaps I might point out that the predecessors of the RAF pilots your friends booed so enthusiastically stopped Hitler in his tracks in 1940 during the Battle of Britain and later those nasty Americans helped push him back to his bunker. Pacifism, you see only goes so far in protecting freedom. But then, perhaps freedom is not high on your agenda.
by Justin Morahan Wed Jul 16, 2003 01:35
I think the glibness was on your part in suggesting that people who demonstrated in Salthill were indulging in a hobby.
"Just how does a little airshow organised by a few enthusiasts in a seaside town relate to Hitler's Nazis" you ask. I'm glad you asked because that was the point I was making when I wrote that "a lot of people would have come out to see Nazi airshows and enjoyed the spectacle for its appearance without realizing that it was part of a propaganda campaign for Hitler's wars".
Airshows, whether little or big, give a feeling of well-being mixed with wonder to that group among the spectators who never question what else they may be about apart from "free" entertainment. Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch?
I believe that there is another purpose: to make people feel good about the entertainers, in this case the army.
It's not difficult to imagine that Hitler's airshows served such a purpose.
Hitler's Nazis (who lived in the past) engaged in a cruel, immoral and unjust war and occupation on the pretext of liberating the people of the nations occupied.
Today, the US and UK and other armies (who live in the present)- backed up to the hilt by this State - have engaged and are still engaged in a cruel, immoral and unjust war and occupation on the pretext of liberating the people of the nations occupied.
Is the similarity not clear or do you still think I am being just glib?
Should I feel bad for having mentioned Hitler at all and given you the chance to tell me that the predecessors of the present UK and US armies helped to overthrow him. No, because I will not try to catch that red herring.
The comparison I was making was between the armies of two superpowers waging evil wars on the pretext of providing freedom for the occupied. I will stick with that.
Your throw-in comment that my sense of proportion needs adjusting: I will be polite and let us agree to differ on that one.
You presume - wrongly - that freedom is not high on my agenda. I must tell you that I place a very high value on freedom as does every other former prisoner who has been deprived of freedom for even a little time. I know, you see,that you don't have to leave Ireland or live in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein to get locked away for a non-violent action. Freedom?
Peace.
"Just how does a little airshow organised by a few enthusiasts in a seaside town relate to Hitler's Nazis" you ask. I'm glad you asked because that was the point I was making when I wrote that "a lot of people would have come out to see Nazi airshows and enjoyed the spectacle for its appearance without realizing that it was part of a propaganda campaign for Hitler's wars".
Airshows, whether little or big, give a feeling of well-being mixed with wonder to that group among the spectators who never question what else they may be about apart from "free" entertainment. Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch?
I believe that there is another purpose: to make people feel good about the entertainers, in this case the army.
It's not difficult to imagine that Hitler's airshows served such a purpose.
Hitler's Nazis (who lived in the past) engaged in a cruel, immoral and unjust war and occupation on the pretext of liberating the people of the nations occupied.
Today, the US and UK and other armies (who live in the present)- backed up to the hilt by this State - have engaged and are still engaged in a cruel, immoral and unjust war and occupation on the pretext of liberating the people of the nations occupied.
Is the similarity not clear or do you still think I am being just glib?
Should I feel bad for having mentioned Hitler at all and given you the chance to tell me that the predecessors of the present UK and US armies helped to overthrow him. No, because I will not try to catch that red herring.
The comparison I was making was between the armies of two superpowers waging evil wars on the pretext of providing freedom for the occupied. I will stick with that.
Your throw-in comment that my sense of proportion needs adjusting: I will be polite and let us agree to differ on that one.
You presume - wrongly - that freedom is not high on my agenda. I must tell you that I place a very high value on freedom as does every other former prisoner who has been deprived of freedom for even a little time. I know, you see,that you don't have to leave Ireland or live in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein to get locked away for a non-violent action. Freedom?
Peace.
by Drbinoche Thu Jul 17, 2003 00:36
Could
someone please give me their definition of Violence. I mean to me
Violence has always meant the act of willful attacks or aggression
towards another person, place or thing. It does not mean that it only
means unwanted violence against a pacifist or against a civilian target.
To me, 'de-arming' the plane as you call it IS violence and to the best
of my memory Violence is against the constitution. It does not say its
only against the constitution if its against an unarmed person or
anything like that. It states that it is against the constitution to
attack a piece of property that is not yours, to attack a person or to
damage someone elses property. So to me attacking the planes was
violence and the people involved should certainly have to face charges.
Now unless I am missing something in the constitution that immediately
states that violence is acceptable, then I can't see where the problem
is. Yes the constitution does say that a person can use violence if it
is for a good purpose, but once again I need to bring to the attention
that if we are going to attack any american aircraft why aren't you
doing it more often on any american aircraft!
Violence is violence and any use of it should be opposed by all decent people. You can't have one rule for yourselves and one rule for another set of people.
Violence is violence and any use of it should be opposed by all decent people. You can't have one rule for yourselves and one rule for another set of people.
by Justin Morahan Thu Jul 17, 2003 09:30
Violence is defined,in some dictionaries at least, as "force" and has a second meaning "the unlawful use of force".
Language develops by usage - and words develop new meanings with the passage of time and sometimes in line with regional history.
In Ireland, I believe, the word "violence" has suffered pejoration because of the years of killing, maiming and bombing of people. For want of a more precise word, the term "violence" was used to describe these happenings, and that kind of activity has now become
associated in many minds here with the word "violence".
Already the first meaning of the word would appear to be obsolete: as Des Fennell rightly pointed out many years ago, few would talk about the "violence" (force) used in the opening of a door.
I would suggest that "violence" has at present two meanings in this country: "the unlawful use of force" and "the use of force with the intention of seriously damaging human life or limb". So, I think, most of us in Ireland nowadays would use the word to describe a wide range of acts that damage persons physically, including the acts of war, terrorism, torture, forced rape, physical bullying etc.
Whichever of these two meanings you apply to it, I would also suggest that the word does not cover the action of damaging a plane in order to attempt to stop a war which was going to include the bombing of people.
As Ramsey Clarke pointed out at the trial of Mary Kelly, her action in damaging the plane was the equivalent of removing the bullets from a gun. Her action was therefore an act of disarmament, just as if the IRA, UVF etc had broken up their own guns with axes.
Her action was not unlawful, I would contend, for many reasons. 1} She was acting with the authority of the Nuremberg judge who wrote that individuals have a duty to disobey domestic laws when those laws offend against peace or humanity. 2) She was acting to save the lives and limbs of people who were in immanent danger of being murdered and maimed by the owners of the plane in question, therefore with just cause. 3) Her action was to prevent violence. It was a classic form of civil disobedience as practised by people like Gandhi, Luther King and Jesus Christ.
What applies to Mary Kelly applies, mutatis mutandis, to Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly of the Catholic Workers. In my opinion,they were obeying not only the higher law as set out at Nuremberg but also the law of the God in whom they believe who asked that swords be beaten into ploughshares. In addition to following in the footsteps of Gandhi, Luther King and Jesus Christ, they were also inspired by the words and actions of Dorothy Day and the Berrigan brothers, (the priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan) who have carried out similar actions in the United States and have spent many, many years in jail in the USA for their acts of civil disobedience against the violence of war. Philip died shortly before the action of the five and Daniel is still giving witness).
Maybe it would help to ask: When Jesus used force in the Temple to overturn the tables of the money lenders and drive them out of it, thus transgressing the law, could his action be described in modern Ireland as a "violent act".
I hope that I have not in any way misrepresented the actions of either Mary Kelly or the 5 Catholic Workers. If so, I apologize.
Peace.
Language develops by usage - and words develop new meanings with the passage of time and sometimes in line with regional history.
In Ireland, I believe, the word "violence" has suffered pejoration because of the years of killing, maiming and bombing of people. For want of a more precise word, the term "violence" was used to describe these happenings, and that kind of activity has now become
associated in many minds here with the word "violence".
Already the first meaning of the word would appear to be obsolete: as Des Fennell rightly pointed out many years ago, few would talk about the "violence" (force) used in the opening of a door.
I would suggest that "violence" has at present two meanings in this country: "the unlawful use of force" and "the use of force with the intention of seriously damaging human life or limb". So, I think, most of us in Ireland nowadays would use the word to describe a wide range of acts that damage persons physically, including the acts of war, terrorism, torture, forced rape, physical bullying etc.
Whichever of these two meanings you apply to it, I would also suggest that the word does not cover the action of damaging a plane in order to attempt to stop a war which was going to include the bombing of people.
As Ramsey Clarke pointed out at the trial of Mary Kelly, her action in damaging the plane was the equivalent of removing the bullets from a gun. Her action was therefore an act of disarmament, just as if the IRA, UVF etc had broken up their own guns with axes.
Her action was not unlawful, I would contend, for many reasons. 1} She was acting with the authority of the Nuremberg judge who wrote that individuals have a duty to disobey domestic laws when those laws offend against peace or humanity. 2) She was acting to save the lives and limbs of people who were in immanent danger of being murdered and maimed by the owners of the plane in question, therefore with just cause. 3) Her action was to prevent violence. It was a classic form of civil disobedience as practised by people like Gandhi, Luther King and Jesus Christ.
What applies to Mary Kelly applies, mutatis mutandis, to Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly of the Catholic Workers. In my opinion,they were obeying not only the higher law as set out at Nuremberg but also the law of the God in whom they believe who asked that swords be beaten into ploughshares. In addition to following in the footsteps of Gandhi, Luther King and Jesus Christ, they were also inspired by the words and actions of Dorothy Day and the Berrigan brothers, (the priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan) who have carried out similar actions in the United States and have spent many, many years in jail in the USA for their acts of civil disobedience against the violence of war. Philip died shortly before the action of the five and Daniel is still giving witness).
Maybe it would help to ask: When Jesus used force in the Temple to overturn the tables of the money lenders and drive them out of it, thus transgressing the law, could his action be described in modern Ireland as a "violent act".
I hope that I have not in any way misrepresented the actions of either Mary Kelly or the 5 Catholic Workers. If so, I apologize.
Peace.
by Drbinoche Sat Jul 19, 2003 14:02
"I
would suggest that "violence" has at present two meanings in this
country: "the unlawful use of force" and "the use of force with the
intention of seriously damaging human life or limb"."
You make this statement and then go on to say that disarming a plane as you call it is not violence. Please look at what you said Violence is the unlawful use of force. Did Mary or the five catholic workers have the law behind them..........NO. Did they use force.....Yes. Therefore they used violence which cannot be accepted in a decent law-abiding country!
I think this proves how contradictory some anti-war protestors can be. Its OK to attack aircraft and annoy people with numerous methods of intimidation, but when the government does it to them , they cry foul!
You make this statement and then go on to say that disarming a plane as you call it is not violence. Please look at what you said Violence is the unlawful use of force. Did Mary or the five catholic workers have the law behind them..........NO. Did they use force.....Yes. Therefore they used violence which cannot be accepted in a decent law-abiding country!
I think this proves how contradictory some anti-war protestors can be. Its OK to attack aircraft and annoy people with numerous methods of intimidation, but when the government does it to them , they cry foul!
by Justin Morahan Sun Jul 20, 2003 09:42
They
may or may not have had domestic law "behind them" but surely you
realise that there is a higher law than our present Irish law?
Nine jurors in Kilrush, after hearing all the evidence, decided that, for them, Mary Kelly had not "broken the law". See my comments about Nuremberg also - if Germans had damaged a concentration camp (using force) would this have broken International law, or a higher moral law?
If someone had smashed up the car that later bombed Omagh (using force in doing so) would this have been "against the law"? and you might ask yourself against what law?
"Had Mary and the five Catholic workers the law behind them?" you ask, and you answer "NO".
I would say "YES", and nine jurors representing the Irish people would appear to agree in the case of Mary Kelly.
There is no contradiction in what I wrote, only in your own interpretation of it.
Who shouted "Foul"? I thought it was the Irish government that did that - they are charging these protestors with a crime. In my opinion, Bertie and his whole government should themselves be in the dock answering to the Irish people why, in our name, they participated in an unjust, immoral and illegal war, the ugliness and immorality of which is unravelling more each day.
I don't see anyone bringing Messrs Bush, Blair, Aherne to justice - not yet at any rate.
Peace
Nine jurors in Kilrush, after hearing all the evidence, decided that, for them, Mary Kelly had not "broken the law". See my comments about Nuremberg also - if Germans had damaged a concentration camp (using force) would this have broken International law, or a higher moral law?
If someone had smashed up the car that later bombed Omagh (using force in doing so) would this have been "against the law"? and you might ask yourself against what law?
"Had Mary and the five Catholic workers the law behind them?" you ask, and you answer "NO".
I would say "YES", and nine jurors representing the Irish people would appear to agree in the case of Mary Kelly.
There is no contradiction in what I wrote, only in your own interpretation of it.
Who shouted "Foul"? I thought it was the Irish government that did that - they are charging these protestors with a crime. In my opinion, Bertie and his whole government should themselves be in the dock answering to the Irish people why, in our name, they participated in an unjust, immoral and illegal war, the ugliness and immorality of which is unravelling more each day.
I don't see anyone bringing Messrs Bush, Blair, Aherne to justice - not yet at any rate.
Peace
by Drbinoche Mon Jul 21, 2003 00:52
OK
I gotta say I agree with the government pressing charges against the
protestors. They trespassed onto an airfield. They then went and
attacked a foreign military aircraft. The Domestic law of the land is
obviously necessary, but by their actions, they have essentially stated
that there are some basic laws that they will not follow. They used violence, that is not in dispute, but I would like to ask how can
someone who represents the anti-war movement and claim to be pacifists,
then go out and use violence. Its violence, surely if they were anti-war
they would abhor all violence and thus never use it. Thats an obvious
contradiction.
The argument of whether someone who was living in Germany during the second world war attacked a concentration camp, is not really relevant. To begin with they would have been killed on the spot, something that the guys down in shannon never really faced.
My point is, how can they be anti-war and by proxy anti-violence and yet use violence in their campaign and how can they expect to live in a country and not be willing to obey the law?? If you break the law you should be punished. That is definitely a fact.
The argument of whether someone who was living in Germany during the second world war attacked a concentration camp, is not really relevant. To begin with they would have been killed on the spot, something that the guys down in shannon never really faced.
My point is, how can they be anti-war and by proxy anti-violence and yet use violence in their campaign and how can they expect to live in a country and not be willing to obey the law?? If you break the law you should be punished. That is definitely a fact.
by Justin Morahan Mon Jul 21, 2003 16:44
If
you read me again, you will notice that I said: "Whichever of these two
meanings you apply to it, I would also suggest that the word (violence)
does not cover the action of damaging a plane in order to attempt to
stop a war which was going to include the bombing of people".
So, No, I do not agree with you.
In my opinion, there was no violence done at Shannon.
The violence was done by planes from Shannon when they bombed Iraq. The people who sent out those planes broke international and moral law and so committed violence.
They killed innocent people and so committed violence.
Mary Kelly and the five Catholic Workers, Karen Fallon, Nuin Dunlop, Deirdre Clancy, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly killed no-one, injured no-one. They followed international and moral law by carrying out an act of civil disobedience i.e. damaging a plane, in order to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. This is not violence. This is preventing violence. Why can't you see that you are putting down good and brave people.
You can't just go on repeating things such as: "They used violence, that is not in dispute", when you know well that it IS in dispute.
You say the reference to someone damaging a concentration camp in Germany is not relevant because "they would have been killed on the spot". How do you know this? Suppose they got in surreptitiously and did the damage without being noticed, would you regard their action as "violence" in the pejorative sense? I certainly would not.
I don't represent the anti-war movement, neither does any of the people in question. I do know that they are all anti-war and so am I. Yes, we do all abhor violence as you presume.
On foot of this fact I detect two questions that recur in your posting:
1) Why, you ask, do we uphold the use of violence (in the pejorative sense)
2) Why, you ask, do we uphold the breaking of domestic law.
I think I have answered both of these questions adequately in the course of this thread but to summarize again:
1) We don't uphold the use of violence (in the pejorative sense)
2) We do uphold the right of people to break domestic laws non-violently when these domestic laws themselves are contrary to a higher moral law.
Peace
So, No, I do not agree with you.
In my opinion, there was no violence done at Shannon.
The violence was done by planes from Shannon when they bombed Iraq. The people who sent out those planes broke international and moral law and so committed violence.
They killed innocent people and so committed violence.
Mary Kelly and the five Catholic Workers, Karen Fallon, Nuin Dunlop, Deirdre Clancy, Damien Moran and Ciaron O'Reilly killed no-one, injured no-one. They followed international and moral law by carrying out an act of civil disobedience i.e. damaging a plane, in order to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. This is not violence. This is preventing violence. Why can't you see that you are putting down good and brave people.
You can't just go on repeating things such as: "They used violence, that is not in dispute", when you know well that it IS in dispute.
You say the reference to someone damaging a concentration camp in Germany is not relevant because "they would have been killed on the spot". How do you know this? Suppose they got in surreptitiously and did the damage without being noticed, would you regard their action as "violence" in the pejorative sense? I certainly would not.
I don't represent the anti-war movement, neither does any of the people in question. I do know that they are all anti-war and so am I. Yes, we do all abhor violence as you presume.
On foot of this fact I detect two questions that recur in your posting:
1) Why, you ask, do we uphold the use of violence (in the pejorative sense)
2) Why, you ask, do we uphold the breaking of domestic law.
I think I have answered both of these questions adequately in the course of this thread but to summarize again:
1) We don't uphold the use of violence (in the pejorative sense)
2) We do uphold the right of people to break domestic laws non-violently when these domestic laws themselves are contrary to a higher moral law.
Peace
Well done also to Galway (from a Mayoman!) on yesterday's victories in the Connaught finals).
Unfortunately, the airshow was mentioned a few times with love on the RTE commentary.
Keep up the good work.
Also: who runs the 'airshow'? What pressure can be put on them to cancel it or confine it to civil aviation? (apart from sending Mary Kelly up!).
Pity about the Limerick anti-war movement, very elitist there, only 20 people for the Scott Ritter talk!
I was terribly disappointed to see that not a single protestor killed themselves. I brought my whole family along hoping to witness some self-immolations of the sort recently seen in Paris, but got nothing of the sort.
I feel that this constitutes serious false-advertising and I will be making a complaint to the relevant authorities in due course.
Any idea of the response from the general public to your demo??
These demonstrations are all about "·complicity·".
Observe above your taxes.
your hospitals, your education, your vaccines, your future, and inside some young psychopath protected by the Government.
Observe above your government.
¿did Bush turn up in his air combat uniform?
anyway, fair play to ye all.
30 people came to protest...
The figures speak for themselves.
During the Die in,did the protesters pay any attention to the marine micro-organisms that were killed when they threw themselves onto the sand,crushing this fragile life form.
Take your protest to the white house. Dont try to ruin a nice day out.
And our impression, having run street stalls on 2 successive Saturdays on the issue, is that the Airshow is not popular among Galwegians who, firstly, dislike the noise which tends to begin on the Friday before, and secondly, are irritated by the parading of military hardware.
As for a question raised by 'Anonymous' about the reaction from the public: there was some barracking from tipsy young men and hostile remarks from individuals; the majority were tolerant; some people were keen to find out what our protest was about; there was applause from crowds at two of the beaches -perhaps it was ironically intended, but I don't think so.
Personally, I'm not sure about the wisdom of protesting on the day of the event. (And I was one of the organisers.) Inevitably, there is a sense in which protestors are rebuking those who come to the show -and there will always be more of them. Better I think, is to run an information campaign in advance, pointing out what these machines are designed to do, and persuading people not to go. Incredible as it might seem, we spoke to people at the show yesterday who were disgusted by the display of warplanes. If our information campaign had been effective, nobody in Galway should have been left in ignorance about the nature of yesterday’s warshow
Go on, it will be a lasting testament to your moronic misguidedness and will allow us to enjoy a great family day out.
stand back and think about what you're being exposed to and ask yourself if you like being manipulated in such an overt and blatant way
The country is full of people like myself who have these views and don't do a whole lot about it, either through work or other commitments.
The anti-war movement probably gained alot on Sunday, by confronting people who thought they were on a family day out with the reality of the machines they might have been admiring. If they changed one mind that would have been a start, and I imagine that the ratio of gung-ho war-mongers to ordinary people enjoying a spectacle would have meant that several minds were opened.
It's good to see the pictures on this website and good to see the energy continuing to thrive at the heart of the anti-war movement.
As for the military equipment from the Irish forces, How the hell else are we supposed to advertise and recruit. We need people to defend these Islands. We won't definitely be invaded, but we could be, Highly unlikely, but still possible. Now would you rather have someone to help defend us in that highly unlikely scenario, or would you rather have no offensive weapons and therefore leave us completely useless for defense. Let me tell you, there are bad people out there, not just the military guys, but others and the sad truth is they don't play fair and they don't care whether you agree with em or not. Defense is NEEDED in the world nowadays and unfortunately will be needed for many years to come.
Grow up, get a job, cut your hair, shave, stop doing drugs, stop whinging, pay your taxes and get a fucking life. Instead of protesting on Sundays at Family events and bugging the shit out of people, why don't you just go for a walk or maybe do some weights or do something worthwhile, rather than wasting your time and ours!
The Irish army is only ever going to be effective in defending certain interests from the irish population, or subsidising the hugely profitable banks whenever they transport money
Yes they are excellent at their job, most of whom are pilot trainers who have trained indonesian pilots in the uses of Aerospace Hawks which are used to terrorise and kill the people of Aceh and West Papua, and many have also served in missions over Iraq.
"Grow up, get a job, cut your hair, shave, stop doing drugs, stop whinging, pay your taxes and get a fucking life."
Speaking as one of the protestors, I have a job, have only been unemployed for one month of my adult life, am happily married, and pay way too much tax for my liking. I shave daily, don't take drugs apart from the odd pint, and have a very happy and fulfilling life. I want this happy life to continue, and that means that with every ounce of my strength I will continue to oppose and protest the glorification of militarism even if that means ruining your family day out!
The airshow wasn't such a lovely day out for the terrified children I saw running up the beach holding their ears when the sound of those planes ripped through the sky, still, on the other hand it may have been educational, because until you see the speed and hear the roar of those warplanes, you can't really imagine their power and the damage they can( and are designed to) do
Only one problem, I dont believe even one of these have-a-go-heroes have ever experienced real warfare or witnessed real violence. Its easy to be all gungho when you've never seen or been in the thick of the real thing.
So would any of the toy soldiers like to enlighten us as to their real life experience of battles etc. And sorry going to airshows or playing Band of Brothers on your computer doesnt count!
Having seen F16s, helicopter gunships etc in action, and the terrible consequences of that action, Sirrocco says more power to the peace protesters!
The thing that disturbed me more was that afterwards while i was passing an army truck, i heard the "click, click" of metal. I went over and to my horror I say a little kid with an army riffle and pointing it and aiming it. I thought that was bad taste by the army...very nasty tack-ticks. I suppose there were some people who saw it as a whole "glorifying war" thing, but i think you see it from your own personal view.
I see your point about maybe it would have been better to have an information campaign in advance.
But the protest ye organised on the day can only have amounted to being a good thing. Probably would have been best to do both if anything!
I have no doubt ye made a certain amount of people think about what they were attending, and by your visible presence increased the likelihood of some individuals getting involved in anti-war and other related activities in the future.
Well done.
I gotta ask: What the hell was the point in the protest. I mean if we are realistically going to protest any aircraft that can be used as a military aircraft,
ANSWER:
Or alternatively World Airways or one of the other troop carriers or munitions and supplies carriers that _were_ protested and are still the subject of protests at Shannon. The protests are occurring because the Tornados are part of a MILITARY display team. The particularly martial nature of this airshow is emphasized by the display of land-based military hardware as shown in the photographs above. The function of a display such as the above is the psychological habituation of the audience to war and militarism. It's like pigeons: if you walk toward one that lives in a relatively quiet rural area it will take fright and fly off quickly, whereas the pigeons on Pearse St. platform practically have to be chased away.
QUOTE Drbinoche:
I say Technically as its not what it would be used for, but you people are claiming for a fact, that the aircraft there were used to kill innocent people in Iraq/Afghanistan/Kosovo etc. You have NO proof, unless one of you is by chance an Air Chief Marshall in the British or German Air force, you know next to nothing about these aircraft. They could all be brand new for all you know.
ANSWER: Read what has been written about the training that the Tornado pilots have helped with: the specific claim is that they were involved with training the Indonesian military. However the probability is that they were also involved in the other conflicts that you mention (in no matter how humble a role). They are parts of a military machine. If they weren't doing their job of presenting the fluffy side of killing machines then there'd be fewer pilots to burn and explode people in other countries.
QUOTE Drbinoche:
As for the military equipment from the Irish forces, How the hell else are we supposed to advertise and recruit.
ANSWER:
So, the need of the Irish Army to advertise and recruit trumps any protest? Under what circumstances would you find a problem with the Irish Army appearing alongside other military forces? Would you advertise with Saddam Hussein if you thought you'd get a lot of recruits?
QUOTE:
We need people to defend these Islands. We won't definitely be invaded, but we could be,
ANSWER:
"These Islands"? Go back to trolling imc-uk! However, Ireland has already been invaded by a foreign army with aid of traitors in our armed forces and security forces. Check it out here. Our constitution and democracy are in shreds due to the despicable use of force by the Gardai, Airport-Rent-A-Thugs and the bootlicking dishonourable Irish Army. If you object to any of the previous descriptions then I invite you to show me a formal protest (or indeed any protest) from any representative body for these organisation.
QUOTE Drbinoche:
Grow up, get a job, cut your hair, shave, stop doing drugs, stop whinging, pay your taxes and get a fucking life.
ANSWER:
Unfortunately your use of drugs and your "fucking life" have obviously removed from you the ability to see beyond your hormone-induced titties. My suggestion to you: read more, think more, curse less. Be a man and educate yourself before you speak.
At home they have provided search and rescue cover and at times emergency ambulance cover. And you're knocking them? What planet are you on?
When I said 'these Islands' I meant, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, [which while still part of our country, is not governed by Ireland and therefore, not Irish again, yet] and also all of the Islands off the coast of Ireland [the Aran Islands, Inisturk etc, which are...you guessed it ISLANDS!!!].
To say that these pilots who flew the display over Salthill on Sunday were probably flying during the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan/Kosovo etc, I must point out that the Tornado was a German aircraft and the only wars that the german tornados have flown in recently were the First Gulf War, which was necessary; and Kosovo, which once again was necessary and while I do agree that mistakes happened in both wars and innocents civilians were killed, I would rather have had mistakes unfortunately happen and people die, than leave the situation that was being experienced in both countries to continue. I say this once again as a person, [probably one of only a few on this site, who has actually lost friends in combat and who has had to post guard detail at comrades funerals] Unfortunately wars claim lives, both military and civilain and while it is very bad and very gruesome, it is sometimes needed. It does have no bearing what-so-ever on an air display.
Hawks are used by the Indonesian military, but so are Pc-9s and other trainer aircraft, why don't you people start protesting outside Baldonnel, because the Irish Air Corp is due to be receiving a few Pc-9s in the next few months. The indonesian air force also use Dauphins also used by the Irish Air Corps. If we are going to start protesting any planes that are remotely related to actual military versions then lets protest everywhere. The Red Arrows flown on Sunday are NEVER EVER flown by anybody but members of the RAF and would certainly never be flown by a novie pilot as the Indonesian pilots would be regarded in repects of experience.
You are right we were invaded and controlled by years by the British and do you know what....get over it? How the hell are the Irish people ever going to move on if we do not learn to get over it and just move on. The British are never going to apologise for the conquering of Ireland and anybody who dreams that they might is really living in a dream world. What would it get us anyway?? Britain apologises and nothing changes. The Irish government would still be corrupt, the North would still be balancing on a knife-edge, and taxes would still be too high.
Stop focusing on problems around the world and start focusing on solving our own problems first. Then we can concentrate on problems from around the globe.
The kids holding their ears and screaming as the aircraft flew low and fast, well that is hardly the pilots fault now is it. They'd be doing the same if a 747 flew fast and low over em. Its not the terror of the type of planes that is causing the screaming, its the noise in their ears!!! You make it sound like the planes were heavily armed getting ready for a strafing run onto the displays!!!
You saw a child playing with a gun. Was it loaded?? Did it have the safety on or off?? I say this only as I know plenty of friends and also people who are anit-war protestors who allow their children to hunt and to use shotguns and rifles. These weapons are no different to an empty Steyr or BAP. The ony difference essentially is when you load the weapon, Then you have a significantly different prospect. The children were playing with a rifle, well kids will play with anything shiny. Most males as children will play with guns and play cowboys and indians. What do you propse you get rid of all forms of possibly violent play?? Do you honestly think that that would work for everyone?? That that would in anyway help the world??
The Irish Armed Forces, BTW, have a long and well documented career fighting for the UN and training to protect these lands. We have fought with bravery and great sacrfice during the years, to state that we are useless and no better than armed guards is both offending and very disrespectful to the men who laid down their lives fighting for your freedom and for the good of society. If you believe that we should have no armed forces or that the Garda, for that matter, should be disbanded, then please by all means suggest an alternative means of protection. The Garda have made mistakes, but guess what they are human. Have you people never made mistakes?? Do you believe that because a person has a certain career they are immediately redundant from being human and therefore should never make mistakes. If you made a mistake in work and a box hit a collegue or a customer on the head, would you be happy to resign immediately or accept that you getting fired is an acceptable punishment for a situation that got out of your control rapidly.
You see my point is, its easy for people to say this and that and demand that Ireland never have another Airshow where Military aircraft are flown and that the Garda who make mistakes hould be immediately fired etc, but its alot mor difficult for people to sit back take a logical POV and realise that the ctions you demand are counter-productive and would in all certainty lead to more problems than they are solving
You finish your piece saying:-
"You see my point is, its easy for people to say this and that and demand that Ireland never have another Airshow where Military aircraft are flown and that the Garda who make mistakes hould be immediately fired etc, but its alot mor difficult for people to sit back take a logical POV and realise that the ctions you demand are counter-productive and would in all certainty lead to more problems than they are solving"
Regarding this:-
What is a logical POV on this matter?
How are the actions we are looking for counter-productive?
And how would they in all certainty lead to more problems than they are solving?
And if I could ask you further:-
Would you not agree that war is an ugly & horrifying thing? - that only leads to death, as you have had the unfortunate experience of experiencing yourself?
As such, would you not agree that the last thing we humans should be doing is glorifying it in ANY format whatsoever? I'm sure the Galway airshow to many may just seem innocent, but surely it is a type of glorification of the weaponry of war? Which besides adults, many innocent children will have borne witness to?
Best regards.
It takes a long time for the fact to register that young people are trained to kill other human beings in every army, and in every army this is called defence.
This is the ugly truth no matter how armies glamorize themselves with smart uniforms, polished shoes and buttons, bands, state funerals, parades, and airshows.
Armies give all sorts of enticements to possible recruits such as education in their chosen field, arts and crafts, gymnastics, sports, cameraderie. But the sine qua non for every soldier is the ability to kill a fellow human in cold blood.
Many young people go into armies because there is nowhere else for them to go. Some go for the adventure, many believe the propaganda that they are heroes serving their country. Some follow a family tradition. A few probably go in for less worthy motives. Some are sent in by judges who offer the army as an alternative to jail.
Once in, the primary rule is to obey. Not for them the Nuremberg principles. From the first day the young soldier is taught never to disobey "a superior officer". If the message doesn't get home at first, bullying may be used and condoned. The message eventually sinks in: Do almost anything you want to do, but one thing you must never do - and that is, think for yourself. Let your betters do the thinking for you. Ask, if you will, how many steps you take after the order "Halt", ask how often you must shave per week, ask even how many stripes on a sergeant major's sleeve but never ask "Why are we supporting the war?" or "Why are we going to Afghanistan?" You will have been given the answer to these questions before you ask and invariably it will be "Because your country needs you to do it". It won't be "Because the present FF/PD coalition has decided it."
"Why are we protecting US planes at Shannon?" a soldier might wonder. The true answer is that our Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, without the permission of the Irish people, forced Ireland to participate in the war against Iraq, and some really brave people carrying no guns or bombs went into Shannon -twice-to show their disgust and fury and damaged one of the US Navy's planes - and our Government doesn't want this to happen again as George W Bush told Bertie Ahern over a pot of shamrock that it would be a hostile act if he, Bertie, refused to give George the use of Shannon to refuel the planes that were flying to Iraq to bomb the people in that country because of all those weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein was hiding , ready, as we know, within 45 minutes to launch a savage attack and wipe out Britain and the Unted States!
But that is not the answer the soldier will be given.
He or she will be told that there are enemies of the State out there, baddies, dangerous, not grown up, unemployed, long-haired, unshaven, drug-taking, whinging, non-taxpaying - that's how you described them, isn't it? And - I forgot - unpardonable - they dont "do weights"!
How could any soldier not be happy in Shannon defending the US warplanes against dangerous pacifists such as these, armed with conviction. They have the word of George Bush, Tony Blair and now Brian Cowen that the war against Iraq was "justified". And you can be sure that all of those good gentlemen shave regularly and "do weights".
What I am saying is that war is immoral and the idea of training others to kill is immoral. Armies are all wrong from beginning to end.
Strangely, you say "Stop focusing on problems around the world and start focusing on solving our own problems first. Then we can concentrate on problems from around the globe." I think this is strange because you are all in favour of soldiers focussing on problems in Afghanistan, the Lebanon and elsewhere. Had you decided that all our own problems were solved when you undertook overseas duties?
Don't get me wrong: I am with you 100% in wanting to create a better world. Where we are at odds is that you believe a better world comes from the barrel of a gun - I don't. I believe that one pacifist presence - such as that of Michael Bermingham of Balbriggan or Kathy Kelly of Chicago can bring more peace to Baghdad than 100,000 troops. And that in an age that has been besotted with the notion that might is right.
I am sorry that your comrades died. I am sorry for all who die in war.
Remember though that many peace people have also died, not bearing arms.
They are the forgotten ones.
They die for all humanity but are never honoured.
Maybe that's because they don't do it for honour but out of love.
Thank you for putting your point of view. I wish you peace.
You have just labeled all soldiers murderers or potential murderers, is that a fair comment? In the past Irish soldiers have been force to kill combatants who were trying to kill their comrades or civilians, was this murder? If a soldier kills an armed combatant to prevent the deaths of his comrades or civilians, is that wrong?
Until mankind reaches some higher plane of thought and eradicates violence there will be a need for a Defence Force. Whether is it at home or abroad, Ireland must stand ready to aid the cause of peace and protect innocent civilians, and in most cases this will require the use or the threat of force. How would you discourage a militia from butchering a village full of civilians? With harsh words? You must discourage them by demonstrating your will to defend the village with force.
Contrary to what you may think, soldiers do not sit around hoping for war. They train for the eventuality, but they pray for peace. I think your comments do a great disservice to the Irish Defence Forces and the sterling work they do.
Such sterling work as protecting US troops and hardware at Shannon, on the way to murder innocents in an unjust war.
I don't think Justin was saying the world is a perfect place, or that we don't need to defend ourselves, he was simply stating that when a man becomes a soldier, he is giving up his ability to decide what is right and wrong, to have this decision made for him by his superiors.
This waiving of basic human responsibility results in a lot of the worlds current woes. The issue is not that defence is not needed but that armies and soldiers under the control of corrupt governments(such as ours), run at the behest of big business, reduce soldiers to pawns and boot boys in a larger political game.
"You have just labeled all soldiers murderers or potential murderers, is that a fair comment?"
Yes it is, thats what soldiers are trained for, to murder. It might be just, it might be the right thing to do in given circumstance but its still murder. However more often than not soldiers don't get to decide whether the murder they are carrying out is moral, and how any man can can allow someone else to decide whats moral for them is beyond me.
Also from historical point of view armies have existed which have allowed and encouraged soldiers to think for themselves without reprimand, such as the anarchist armies in the spanish civil war. They worked quite effectively and were only eventually defeated due mainly to superior hardware and resources on the facist side.
As for soldiers not thinking, a soldier is only required to obey lawful orders. If an order is illegal then he or she can refuse to obey. Soldiers do not relinquish their humanity or common-sense upon enlistment.
I'll stop posting now, since there is no way you can see the other side. Despite your obvious ignorance of the military you refuse to accept anyone else's point of view. You are as closed minded as the people you're always moaning about.
As for Shannon, did any of you find it ironic that due to the pointless damage done to US planes that this country got more involved with the war? We went from a situation where American planes were merely stopping here, to one where Irish troops and police had to guard them.
Congratulations on costing people their jobs as well.
We also got less involved "consciously" as a nation - as all the protests made the country really think about the war, and how much people were diswayed from the merits of the war could be seen in the majority support the anti-Shannon camp got before the war and in the huge demonstrations throughout the country.
Could I ask you Frank - regarding the subject matter of this article and the origins of the debate - did you agree with the staging of the (primarily) military air show over Galway?
Regards...
The comment about 'the weights' was just a recommendation for something else to do. I will admit that the long hair aspect was a bit over the top, but you have to realise anytime I get stopped by a member of the anti-war group its always by a bunch of people who quite frankly don't look the most respectable. I am not saying they are no trespectable, but people should know that a persons image is the first thing that will be centred upon.
As for obeying orders, well you see if you don't instill upon soldiers the duty to obey orders that is felt to be right, then when you ask a man to help defend a position under fire or when you ask a man to help you attack the enemy he may very well say No I don't have to obey you. And then you're kinda screwed.
Its very easy to label the killing of another human being as murder, but would you then state that the killing of a man who is strapped with explosives about to blow up a building, is murder or is it more like defence. What more acceptable the death of all within the building or the death of the man trying to kill others. In a fire-fight its never as straight forward as killing him is murder. If it were that simple then the term defence would never be used. Therefore any soldier is a murderer and so is then eligible for prosecution. In a firefight, its either kill the guy firing at you or allow your parents to be handed a folded flag instead of you. I doubt any of the people on this site would willingly hand up their lives rather than save it.
Protecting the US Aircraft was what was requested by the commander in chief of the Irish Armed Forces, the Taoiseach. Well why don't we just stop paying taxes. I mean its only the law and sure if we don't agree with it why don't we just not follow em. Hell by that standard the next person that stops me in the street is gonna end up a vitcim of my bad-temper. I mean I don't agree that that would be murder, but sure its all up to me. Irrespective of whether or not they agreed with the war, it was their duty to obey the order. To claim the Nuremburg excuse here by the way is immensely insulting to people who fought and died in the Second World War. You are essentially stating that the Irish Government is the same as the Nazis, and that therefore all the soldiers should be made war criminals.
You claim the pacifists were unarmed and hinted that they were not committing a crime. OK well lets look at that shall we. They broke onto government property, proceeded to endanger their lives and that of many others by taking up resources at the airport, and then proceeded to attack a plane that they did not agree should be there. So lets translate that over. Next Tuesday Mr.Birmingham is doing a talk in town. I don't agree with Mr.Birmingham, so I shall break into the hotel, I shall evade the security and get into his room and then chop up his suit for the evening. So what is the outcome. Did I have any right to be in his room? NO! Did I have any right to attack his clothes? NO! Did I have any right breaking into the hotel, and in the process probably damaging some of the property of the hotel? NO! So now you can claim that the constitution allows this, because the person disagreed with the person or actions and therefore could take matter into their own hands. Well hell that sounds like we have a go ahead to sort out our own problems. I mean you guys had backing from some people in Ireland to do what you did. I would have backing from some people in Ireland to do what I do. The only difference is that when I get caught I'd admit I had no right to do it and would not INSULT the country by hiding behind the constitution. I love my country and would be more than willing to die for it again, I feel that anybody who takes advantage of the constitution is insulting the entire country and also insulting any who laid down their lives for your freedom.
At no point am I saying that order by the barrel of the gun is the only way to do things, but I understand that unfortunately it is what is needed at some times. Talking does not solve everything. Did talking prevent the massacre at Srebernica, did it prevent the total decimation and mindless murders in Somalia, the Congo or Rwanda. No, it solved nothing in those cases. So what was needed, Military force to show that continuing as they went would no longer be tolerated. I mean why did we not just sit back let em wipe out whole countries and say when they were finished: Now we are angry at what you did and don't do it again??
I undertook my duties as it is what I wanted and I felt that maybe I could get a better understanding of the country and of the many intricacies of it by being on the inside [so to speak!] Troops in Afghanistan. What exactly do you think the Irish soldiers are doing in Afghanistan?? They are helping to defuse munitions and landmines, but sure you guys don't think they should be there so lets get em out and hope that the people of the country can defuse their own bombs.
So if Mr.Birmingham had stayedin Baghdad, the Iraq situation would have been sorted out without any more lose of life. You can say for a fact that by pacifists staying a country run by a bastard Dictator, that eventually all of the people would rise up with all of their weapons and take on the 300000+ soldiers loyal to Saddam. And then he'd go, "Fair enough you guys don't want me around, Id better go!!" More likely Saddam would have crushed all of the opposition placed a strike down on the country, made it harder for an oppositionto form and murder a few more thousand people. I make no dispute that many people were killed in Iraq, innocent people, but by your own arguments, then any personwho dies in Iraq should be mourned, and I don't see you doing it for the US Soldiers who have been dying daily in Baghdad. If Bush got assassinated in South Africa tomorrow, wold you be upset. Probably not, you'd probably celebrate and say well he got what he deserved, but wait he is a human being how can his life be any less important than an innocent Iraqi or Afghan.
"The issue is not that defence is not needed but that armies and soldiers under the control of corrupt governments(such as ours), run at the behest of big business, reduce soldiers to pawns and boot boys in a larger political game." Oh my god, you have just uncovered the biggest cover-up in the world, Governments are being run by big business and they are only important in making money, money, money. News flash, I have known that my whole life, but do you know what else I have known for along time, a headful of ideals and good intentions will get you nowhere. Eventually if any of these people want to have any ability to sort out the problems you are going to have to start working for thes ebig businesses. Its a fact of life.
The fact that the Irish Army was sent into Shannon proves one thing, You had managed to piss off alot of people and still got nothing done. Do you honestly think that some guy in America was fretting that you guys were attacking one or two plane sin Shannon out of a fleet of thousands. They switched Airports in literally one day and it cost them nothing, but a slight inconvenience. Now what did the Irish lose or risk losing: JOBS! Sure people are more important than jobs and money, you won't get an argument on that from me, you will however, have this argument. Do you know for a FACT that every single american aircraft that was flying through Shannon was loaded wtih equipment or men bound for the middle east. I mean they could have been going anywhere, but you immediately assumed they were going for Iraq and therefore attacked and protested at them. More importantly the Americans have been landing in Ireland for years, both during conflicts and during peacetime, so its not like they can only use or only use shannon during wars. The use of shannon by the US airforce is one of the biggest money making enterprises in that region of Ireland. Lets remove it and see what the people of shanon think of. Do you think they'd be sitting there unemployed and scrounging a living, ut thinking "Oh well at least those planes that COULD have been flying to Iraq, to deliver ANYTHING from bombs to water purifiers, are not landing there anymore" No they;d be cursing you guys for removing their jobs.
I still think the airshow was a bit of harmless fun. Did anyone die at it? And I do mean Die not die-in, I mean cease to live from watching some air displays? Did the US strike any Irish targets or threaten the Irish in anyway, shape or form? Did the Irish country make money, did the people enjoy themselves?
2. You misunderstood the reference to the pre-exisiting invasion of our nation. Our nation is a neutral country according to the highest authority in our law: (no not the Taoiseach), the Constitution.
3. Who cares about your "weights", "crusty" etc. comment, that's just an emotive red-herring thrown in by you. It's about as relevant as me describing your inability to see beyond your hormone-induced titties. Like you, I'm not saying that all anti-Constitutional traitors are overweight, low-browed, knuckle-dragging NAZIs, it's just the ones that I've seen and talked to. So, no offense taken I hope?
> As for obeying orders, well you see if you
> don't instill upon soldiers the duty to
> obey orders that is felt to be right, then
> when you ask a man to help defend a position
> under fire or when you ask a man to help you
> attack the enemy he may very well say No I
> don't have to obey you. And then you're kinda
> screwed.
Unless the man is in the army voluntarily acting out of a sense of conviction of moral purpose. (You might want to crack open a history book and take a look at the structure of the anarchist/POUM militias in Spain'36 which had elected officers and a volunteer composition. It sort of gives the lie to your assertion that all soldiers are cowards under compulsion.)
>Its very easy to label the killing of another
> human being as murder,
Yes it is easy. And it's very clear and unambiguous. And it's even easier to say that sometimes we have to murder other people to stop them committing murder.
>Protecting the US Aircraft was what was
> requested by the commander in chief of the
> Irish Armed Forces, the Taoiseach.
Exterminating the Jews was what was requested by the commander of the NAZI forces: der Fuhrer. So, your point is what? You then go on to mention the Nuremberg principles again. Is it possible that you don't understand them?
> You are essentially stating that the Irish
> Government is the same as the Nazis, and that
> therefore all the soldiers should be made war
> criminals.
No, not that they are the "same as". The point is that it is possible for ILLEGAL orders to be given and the obligation, onus and responsibility is open the order-taker NOT to take the orders. You yourself point out that a soldier does not have to obey an illegal order. Under your line of argument a soldier would NEVER make a decision that an order was illegal because: 1. if it comes from above it must be legal, 2. if he didn't then discipline and hence the army would collapse.
To make it clear for you: there only parallel between the NAZIs and the current government is that they are both governments and they are both acting illegally. The only parallel between you and the SS is that you are both trained to murder people and you both are willing to take illegal orders.
If Bermingham's presence were illegal under the constitution then you'd be perfectly entitled, in fact you'd be _obliged_ as a fearless defender of our nation to take some sort of action. If snipping up his suit were the only way to do it that was consonant with your morals then great.
> Did talking prevent the massacre at Srebernica,
No, but bombing was widely expected to accelerate the genocide and yet the US and its NATO allies went ahead and did it anyway. Read Chomsky on this before you shoot your mouth off. Less weights, more reading.
> did it prevent the total decimation and
> mindless murders in Somalia,
Would those be the murders of Somalis committed by US forces or some other forces?
> the Congo or Rwanda.
And in the Congo are you referring to the colonial oppression of the Mau-Mau liberation movement (including the involvement of Irish troops?)
> No, it solved nothing in those cases. So what
> was needed, Military force to show that
> comtinuing as they went would no longer be
> tolerated.
What was needed was for the major Capitalist powers to butt out and pay reparations.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm no Pacifist. I believe that there comes a time when people like you who are willing to work with colonial oppressors and take illegal orders will have to be confronted and I'm willing to see you die in the interests of a better world.
What I'm not willing to see is my country invaded by US aircraft with the collusion of self-righteous, preening imbeciles like yourself.
I have to memorize this its great!
"It's about as relevant as me describing your inability to see beyond your hormone-induced titties. Like you, I'm not saying that all anti-Constitutional traitors are overweight, low-browed, knuckle-dragging NAZIs, it's just the ones that I've seen and talked to. So, no offense taken I hope?"
Are we familiar with human biology Mr Head, I must point out that all 'titties' are created by hormones, that vaguely original insult was completely useless! Oh Anti-constitutional traitor, now that has me intrigued, how am I, a man who has served for the armed forces and defended the nation, whilst also backing my government and accepting that while they are flawed as all human governments are, become a traitor. Whilst you who has never served a day in his life protecting this country for real [ and no going out on the protests and arguing that you know more about the constitution than all of the government lawyers put together is not defending the ation] and who believes that the government should be removed are not a traitor. If you are so well versed in the constitution and are so caring about the nation then the final statement you made is totally irrelevent
"I believe that there comes a time when people like you who are willing to work with colonial oppressors and take illegal orders will have to be confronted and I'm willing to see you die in the interests of a better world"
Well how constitutional. I believe the constitution does give me the right to believe in what I want and so long as it does not pertain to treasonous activities respect whom I want, but then again thats not in line with your future Ireland is it. You would appreciate a land whereby if you don't believe in what you believe in then you should be confronted and your death maybe necessary. My how compassionate, you know, you and some of these governments you hate so much have a lot in common, have you tried applying for a job with em.
"sometimes we have to murder other people to stop them committing murder."
OK lets see this another way. Mary Kelly breaks onto Shannon Airport and damages a plane. Now supposing a situation arose whereby that plane had to take off urgently and the full extent of the damage was not immediately assessed and the plane was though to be air worthy. So the plane takes off, half way through the flight it goes down with all on board. Are the deaths of those pilots 'acceptable' to you, because you feel that they might have been on the way to a warzone?? So in other words, you just got straight back to your point of 'your either with us or against us'
You see there would be a big difference between us. I love my country and love al it stands for. I believe it is beautiful because it allows people like you and I to coexist. I do not think that just because you people do not think the same as me or because we have a different viewpoint that you should be confronted or killied. You on the other hand believe that you have the right by our constitution to allow the deaths of any and all who disagree with your POV. Whether you have said it exactly or implied it, it is still the same.
I am well aware of the Nuremberg principles.
You mention the spanish forces who were 'moral'. Have you stopped to consider that warfare has changed considerably since then. By your rationale, if it worked in teh past it should work now, then civilians would never be killed in war. There is never the element of surprise and no one army has the upper foot at any stage. Doesn't quite work when the bullets are flying though.
If you believe that the army should behave with mor emorals and that every soldier should consider his viewpoint on the issue being ordered to him, why don't you join the army and try to make changes from within. See how long you last with an attitude that is immensely counter-productive and totally useless during a conflict. Its not whether it coming from above makes it legal, its that because it comes from above you have to assume that they have more info than you and that they are doing what is right.
So I am equated to an SS officer. My child, let me tell you something that is by far the most ludicrous and offensive thing I have ever heard. I have yet to see a form I signed when I joined the army that stated I belonged to a superior race and therefore had an obligation to murder those different. By your rationale once, again, you are the same as the SS officer, you have the right to kill people in order to protect the nation, well guess what the SS were told to do. You would see me die if necessary in order to protect our nation, take a guess what the SS would be willing to do??
"Less wieghts, more reading."
Fantastic comment from a person who cannot even spell his authors name correctly. Someone who has to use a bastardized version to sound original and cool. Phuq Head, wow did you work hard all night coming up with that. I have read quite alot and I have read Moore, Chomsky and a lot of the other great anti-wars writers [although I doubt you could call em just anti-war as they are very clear on a lot of points, most of which are excellently researched and thought out].
Ah yes the murder of Somalis by the US. Always back to the great Satan the US. Lets see. I know that you have never lost a friend in combat and so you would have NO idea the frustration that goes through your mind when a friend dies in front of you. You also would have no idea that when in the firefight, nothing is as clearcut as when you are dissecting you actions later [ even better when you are dissecting other peoples and believe you are always right!] But lets me tell you the US forces in Somalia were not sent in there to massacre civilians. Depending on the date you are referring to, I can only make certain comments. The strike on Aidids men using the TOW missiles was a strategic strike against a meeting of high-ranking militia members in an attempt to sever the Hydras head [so to speak] Now if you are referring to the Day of the Ranger October 3rd. I feel I must now point out that I lost a good friend that day and I don't appreciate people inferring ill of the action. The Americans were attempting to catch some of Aidids men. These were the men responsible for the massacre of 24 Pakistani UN peacekeeper soldiers several weeks prior. These men were wanted by the UN. The force went in and chaos reigned down. Yes alot of helpless civilians were killed, probably in the region of 200-600. Now it is impossible to say who was a helpless civilian and who was militia afterwards, coz the bodies of dead militia were raided where they fell. I accept a ot of innocent people were killed. But the soldiers were under fire from people spread out amongst the crowd of innocent civilians. I presume in your mind, you would have stopped firing and waited for all the civilians to leave the area and then engaged the enemy, hoping you were not killed in the meantime. Well things don't work like that. Civilians died, and who is to blame ultimately, the US?, the UN for sending em in?, the people themselves for not getting off the battlefield?, the militia for attaching the US forces? In your eyes it must always be the great Satan the US, they have never done anything but for monetary means. It wouldn't cross your mind that maybe the militia intentionally moved in among the civilians to make it more difficult for the US soldiers to get a clear shot, knowing fill well that the US could certainly not afford to be seen to be mowing down innocent civilians. The fact that after the battle was finished the body of one of the crewmen of Supersix 64 was brutally mutilated, by a so-called respectful muslim group. These people were not really muslims, if they were they would have relinquished the bodies to the Saudi Arabian UN personnel who went to claim em. The fact that Gordon Shugarts body was so badly burned and hacked to pieces, they had to have a closed casket and his wife never saw her husbands face again. These are of course the people who were doing nothing wrong and were certainly not murderous thugs who had held their countries food supplies from people opposed to them. These were the people who had starved ahlf the counrty to its knees so they could sit back and get fat off the remaining few, whilst destroying there opposition. As opposed to America who were attempting to re-install a true representative of the nation as voted for by the people.
"What was needed was for the major Capitalist powers to butt out and pay reparations."
Ah the cry of the communist. Those damned Capitalists and there money grabbing ways. Yeah lets leave the people to die, screw em we don't wanna get involved. If we butt out now, we can let them get proper governments elected by the people who really count. Don't you think that all a country would have to do was sit back and butt out til the affected region was on its knees and then go in and offer help. Why not just let em wipe each other out for a while and then move in and take over what we want. I mean if it was that simple, why send peac-keepers at all. I am sure no-one cares if we butt out and allow the region to destroy itself, after all we are all just capitalist pigs who are only interested in money and be-damned with any moral compunction or with any of our soldiers boys who wanna think for themselves. I mean why send in troops at all, when you can just let the two sides knock-the shit out of each other and go in a collect the pieces!
"What I'm not willing to see is my country invaded by US aircraft with the collusion of self-righteous, preening imbeciles like yourself"
Goddamn those yanks and their invasion plans. I mean Jesus Christ they come over here and land and then they do the cleverest trick in the big invasion hand-book, they leave a few hours later. Oh how do we combat these invaders if they are not here????????
PLease do me a favour stop pretending that you speak for a lot of people, you seem to have no grasp on what you are saying. A pacifist that believes murdering non-believers is OK. How confusing it must be to be your brain???
Mandero, I have to agree, I might get that as my new screen-saver!! Classic line!!
Without getting into all of your latest arguments, could I just revert to the original argument if you will.
I asked you several questions on your original piece, which if you scroll back up you will see.
I know you have been too busy responding to other comments.
The only questions I really want answered were my latter questions, i.e.:-
"Would you not agree that war is an ugly & horrifying thing? - that only leads to death, as you have had the unfortunate experience of experiencing yourself?
and,
As such, would you not agree that the last thing we humans should be doing is glorifying it in ANY format whatsoever? I'm sure the Galway airshow to many may just seem innocent, but surely it is a type of glorification of the weaponry of war? Which besides adults, many innocent children will have borne witness to?"
Regards.