Anti-War Demo, London
I’ve just returned from the Stop The War demonstration in London, protesting against the renewal of Trident and demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Turn-out was good – participation had to be in the tens of thousands, at least.
Here are some pics from the day.
Boo!!!
Hiss!!!
Luminous Green Skeletons Against The War (LGSATW).
Protesting against a war with Iran was a major theme. This is both worrying, because it affirms that an attack on Iran is a realistic possibility, and promising, because people are demonstrating against a war before it has even begun.
Yup.
I missed George Galloway’s speech, but hopefully it’ll be up on YouTube by the end of the day.
Update: lenin puts the attendance at around 100,000. He has some more pictures, if you’re interested, and also reports that the media have (unsurprisingly) effectively blacked-out the event.
There was also a smaller demonstration in Glasgow – it is covered here.
Update II: A video of George Galloway’s speech has been posted on YouTube:
Filed under: Activism, Iran, Iraq, UK, WMD | 18 Comments
Tags: War
-
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Thank you for posting this. We really need to stop the war! We need 100,000 people or more in America to do a similar demonstration. It is time to have PEACE ON EARTH !! We are all in this together.
Well done – the keynote speaker at your fringe rally was George Galloway, who decided to open it with a Muslim religious greeting. Doesn’t that tell you something about the protests – that generally the people who agree with them are either extreme-left loonies like Galloway who nobody listens to for a reason, or people who support Muslim terrorists – perhaps just because they are Muslim, or maybe for other reasons – and who obviously don’t want Britain to defend herself or freedom by investing money in our security or by overthrowing those who bankroll the terrorists in Iran. Congratualtions Jamie – you may as well be on the same level of the terrorists who bombed London two years ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a fan of them too.
‘Thank you for posting this. We really need to stop the war! We need 100,000 people or more in America to do a similar demonstration. It is time to have PEACE ON EARTH !! We are all in this together.’
Peace on earth by not defending ourselves or others from those who wish to compromise our security and freedom? Would peace on earth involve having Saddam Hussein in power, along with other awful tyrants? Do you think that just because we don’t have any weapons, those who seek to attack us will lay down theirs too – or would it be more likely that they’d continue attacking us regardless, with better results if we have disarmed for ‘peace’? What do you think would happen if everyone disarmed apart from, say, North Korea or Iran? Would they be so hesitant in nuking us? Speaking of Iran, would you allow them to have nuclear missiles and not allow anyone to intervene to stop them? Think of how much harm it would do your probably-beloved non-proliferation treaties and causes.
Really, it would be nice if the anti-war lot put up a nice, sensible argument for a change rather than all this naive ‘peace on Earth’ rubbish. But then again, if the best you can do is George Galloway (to your credit, you once had Bertrand Russel, but that was a long time ago, and he was proved wrong), I’m not surprised that this is the kind of drivel you come out with.
Incidentally, who runs this blog? Does he spend most of his life pedantically searching for minor violations of treaties long past their time, of distorted examples of what’s going on in this world, of clips of lunatics such as George Galloway expressing their idiocy? That’s the impression it seems to give…
Lauren: Yep, totally agree. It’s more in important in America, in fact, both because U.S. troops constitute the majority of the ground forces in Iraq, and because the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing at all.
Cicero: It was not a “fringe” rally (100,000 people, representing the majority of public opinion, who favour withdrawal and who are against trident), there’s nothing wrong with Muslims or opening with “Salaam Aleikum”, Iraq has nothing to do with self-defence and people were marching for peace, not for terrorism.
But then you knew that, didn’t you?
Hello, Cicero. I can probably guess where you’ve come from, and why you’ve come here (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24570_Daily_Kos_Kidz_Support_Terrorists#comments). How, in your world, does someone opening with a Muslim greeting equate to the crowd being ‘Supporters of Terrorism’? Considering the people who voted George into power are largely Muslim, its precisely the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from a politician eager to retain his position. Okay, that’s a cynical view, but it’s leap and bounds more credible than your ‘theory. And what exactly is a ‘Supporter of Terrorism’, anyway? Do they have a website where we can leave donations? Do I get a badge and a little flag to wave? Stop being ridiculous and think for a moment: I think you’ll find that Jamie and Lauren – in common with myself – will happily condemn ALL forms of violence, state-sponsored or otherwise; the phrase ‘Anti-War’ means exactly that, nothing more.
And rather than dismiss Lauren’s comments as merely ‘niave’ (which is, I suppose, a step-up from the usual right-wing/neo-con cry of ‘insane’ or ‘deluded’), would it hurt you to at least consider the possibility of a World without War? Or to even discuss the issue reasonably? This ‘them VS us’ mentality, this crusade against the ‘enemy’, really should not have been allowed to leave the school playgrounds. We adults seem to get on just fine without it.
Please. If you must venture outwith the bounds of your little asylum, at least try to bring an open mind and leave the twisted right-wing garbage behind. If all you can do is show up, make personal attacks and not contribute in a fair and balanced manner, then you can’t reasonably expect people to take you or your opinions seriously, can you?
GrantTLC: Wow – thanks for that.
Well, he’s from LGF. ‘Nuff said.
Me again. Sorry, I just wanted to point out some more flaws in your thinking.
“Peace on earth by not defending ourselves or others from those who wish to compromise our security and freedom?”
If, as I suspect, you are a US citizen, then your security and freedom have already been compromised more by your own Govt than by any terrorist. Illegal phone-tapping, mass collection of email…open your eyes a bit.
“Would peace on earth involve having Saddam Hussein in power, along with other awful tyrants?”
No, it wouldn’t. But I haven’t heard one word from the Neo-cons in the US, or Tony Blair, condeming the atrocities in Zimbabwe. Where are the military build-ups rushing to free those tyrannised people? And what exactly has the Second Gulf war replaced Saddam with? MORE tyranny and bloodshed. Oh, and concentration camps that use torture to break people until they aren’t a threat anymore (if they ever were). By your own logic, isn’t it right to criticise the ‘awful’ tyrannical methods and ambitions of the US?
“Do you think that just because we don’t have any weapons, those who seek to attack us will lay down theirs too – or would it be more likely that they’d continue attacking us regardless, with better results if we have disarmed for ‘peace’?”
Stop seeing the world in such simple, aggressive terms. How do you know that a total cessation of all violence wouldn’t work? Has anyone tried it? If no-one had any weapons, no-one would need to fear being attacked by anything more than fists and harsh language, would they? YOURSELF INCLUDED.
“What do you think would happen if everyone disarmed apart from, say, North Korea or Iran? Would they be so hesitant in nuking us?”
That’s fear talking. If we all had, let’s say, only one nuke each – who would use theirs first? Nobody, because of the retribution they would inevitably suffer from the rest. Total disarmament only becomes practical when we remove Fear from human interactions, admitttedly a nigh-impossible task in today’s world, but there’s no need to keep making more and more, is there? We already posses too many weapons, at too great a cost – think of what a mere year’s freedom from miltary spending would do for a nation. How these collosal sums of money could be used to dramatically improve the lives of their citizens. Please, consider the possibilites.
“Speaking of Iran, would you allow them to have nuclear missiles and not allow anyone to intervene to stop them?”
It is pure hypocrisy to say “we have nukes, but you’re not allowed them”. and kindly prove that Iran is developing them – there’s no credible evidence to suggest they are even close to being capable of building them, let alone possessing the will to do so. Answer me this: why does America need so *many* nukes? Their arsenal could destroy the Earth many times over – show me the line where somebody will say “Guys, I think we have enough weapons now”.
“Think of how much harm it would do your probably-beloved non-proliferation treaties and causes.”
Lol. Are you now joining the cause, as far as non-proliferation goes? But as I’ve said, Iran doesn’t appear to be building any nukes (WMDs, anyone? Did we ever find those?) so the proposed War becomes nothing more than a larger power bullying a smaller target. Our non-proliferation treaties are not currently bothered by Iran, thanks.
Wheee, that was fun. Feel free to pop back again!
Iran is definitely an interesting case, I was thinking about it the other day…
For what reason can we justifiably deny Iran nuclear power, or even nuclear weapons for that reason?
I’ve heard the arguement that we shouldn’t allow them nuclear power because they support terrorist organizations. Which organizations? Hezbollah (which is, debatably, a terrorist organization at most), and perhaps some groups in Iraq. I’m sure there’s a few more out there, but regardless, the amount of destruction that these groups have caused is (at least with regards to modern history…) negligible, in comparison with the devastation wrought on ordinary civillians by Western funds flowing into the arms of various terrorist organizations (the Contras, or the Shi’a police forces in Iraq for that matter, etc.) and ruthless military dictatorships (Thailand, Indonesia, etc.). This arguement just doesn’t hold up.
Perhaps Iran is irresponsible? How though? The Iran/Iraq war? That was started by Iraq. Maybe they’re unstable? It’s true that Iran isn’t as ’stable’ as say, the Western democracies, but (arguably) the portion of the Iranian population that may play a part in this ‘destabilization’ is at least more friendly towards the West than the current regime. This is then also not a plausible arguement.
Will Iran use nuclear power to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’? Are they all religious fanatics, as many would have us believe? Large portions of the Iranian population would never forgive their government for such an act. I believe that Iran’s power-players are playing the game of realpolitik, just as our Western leaders are, and obviously, they do not want to play a hand in their nations own self-destruction. Bush believes Jesus will return, Ahmadinejad believes the twelfth Imam will return – is one ‘crazier’ than the next? Iran is part of the ‘axis of evil’, the U.S. is ‘the great satan’ – what’s the difference? Also, with regards to nuking Israel – this is ridiculous, as it would pose massive difficulties to the idea of ‘Palestinian liberation’. I don’t think Palestinians would feel liberated with their homeland being reduced to heaps of irradiated rubble. On so many levels, this is just not a feasible scenario.
The only arguement(or perhaps ‘best’… the only somewhat effective arguement, at least) is then that we should deny Iran nuclear power because them being able to further THEIR interests will be detrimental to us pursuing OURS. We must be so caught up in retaining the splendor of our modern lifestyle, that we just can’t allow Iran the possibility of compromising ‘our’ oil interests, and the like. We must deny Iran being able to compete on an equal playing field, because then, perhaps, we would not be able to live as large. Ruthless, pragmatic self-interest appears to yield the best arguement here, over appeals to the ‘good’ or deeming Iran ‘irresponsible’. Trying to conceal the arguement by framing it in moral terms is merely an effective propaganda tool.
Thinking? What thinking?
dksu:
Firstly, Ahmadinejad never said that. Secondly, even if he did, he has no authority over these matters. Thirdly, Iran couldn’t use a nuke against Israel because if it did Israel would turn it into a pile of radioactive dust.
There is no moral argument whatsoever that denies Iran nuclear weapons whilst permitting states like the U.S. or the UK to expand or maintain their nuclear arsenals. Either it’s bad for everyone or its good for everyone. I would say the former, but certainly the position that it’s acceptable for some but not for others doesn’t hold any water.
“Firstly, Ahmadinejad never said that. ”
Exactly, but a lot of pundits would have us believe that he did, lol. I agree completely!
I was there too, and in the brief wave of optimism (or, at least, of slightly-less-pessimism-than-usual) that came from seeing 100,000 (the figure sounds about right) people mobilised against imperial insanity I even ended up joining Galloway’s party, the Respect Coalition.
Thank you for posting these photos!!!
Dave: Well done! I’m not so sure about Galloway and Respect, but I think they are a good alternative to the largely non-existent “choice” between the big three parties. I probably prefer the Green Party, though…
balkanbalkan: Y’welcome!
Apologies to anyone who clicked on my ‘Rant PLC’ link below – I had problems with the site and lost a good couple of hours work! Sorted now though – just click the header to get to the article.
God. If there is anything as annoying as a right-wing tool, then it must be a left-wing tool. Let’s see…
Really great pictures of people making fun of Blair and bush. That is SO credible and compelling to policy makers arouynd the world, lol!
*** Lauren on Feb 25th, 2007 said:
Thank you for posting this. We really need to stop the war! We need 100,000 people or more in America to do a similar demonstration. It is time to have PEACE ON EARTH !! We are all in this together.***
Really? We didn’t pick a fight with Bin Laden. He brought it to us, despite our determined efforts to ignore him and the growing bodycount of maimed and dead Americans, Kenyans and Nigerians…
He and his supporterts would like to kill you also, in case you haven’t noticed.
Iraq, unfortunately, was definately a mistake. We should have paid more attention to Afghanistan.
GrantTLC at least seems to be better informed then many others here. I actually share many of his concerns regarding the abrogation of civil liberties here in America. I also despise torture, and I am sickened that it has been allowed to sully the once-good name of my country. As for why we haven’t challenged the thuggery in Zimbebwe or Sudan? It really isn’t possible at this time without a serious revival of the draft, and spending increases for military equipment. Not gonna happen for antagonists that simply are not a threat to our immediate security. It isn’t nice, but we can’t save everybody. We learned that in Somalia.
Grant does assert that it is hypocrisy for some countries to have nuclear weapons, and other countries to be denied them. On the surface, yes…it would seem so. It would also seem hypocritical for police officers to have weapons, then, but deny them to former criminals, children and mental patients. Nuclear weapons are not going away. You can rule that out right now. We should try to contain their use and spread of accesibility, because that is A MATTER OF SURVIVAL! It is not a ‘goog” thing for Pakistan and India to both be on a hair trigger primed for mutual destruction. It isn’t a good thing for Israel and Iran (not to mention saudi Arabia and Egypt) to be pointing these weapons at each other. Only the most wildly optomistic observer can conclude that EVEYBODY will be responsible with the ownership of these weapons. Only a determined partisan would argue that Iran really doesn’t want to harm Israel. (if countries always behaved in a rational manner, then the Taliban government would never have permitted the 9/11 attqacks to be planned and initiated from its’ own soil)
dksu is also thinking about Iran, and seems to think that they really aren’t all that bad.
***Will Iran use nuclear power to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’? Are they all religious fanatics, as many would have us believe? Large portions of the Iranian population would never forgive their government for such an act. I believe that Iran’s power-players are playing the game of realpolitik, just as our Western leaders are, and obviously, they do not want to play a hand in their nations own self-destruction. Bush believes Jesus will return, Ahmadinejad believes the twelfth Imam will return – is one ‘crazier’ than the next? Iran is part of the ‘axis of evil’, the U.S. is ‘the great satan’ – what’s the difference? Also, with regards to nuking Israel – this is ridiculous, as it would pose massive difficulties to the idea of ‘Palestinian liberation’. I don’t think Palestinians would feel liberated with their homeland being reduced to heaps of irradiated rubble. On so many levels, this is just not a feasible scenario.***
I have no idea what the Iranians will do. Neither do you. I do know that Ahmadinejad and former President Rafsemjani have made some insanely inflammatory remarks, and the Israelis are not amused. The last time a world leader said those things…he was deadly serious! essentially, they must:
1. Wait, and hope it is all talk.
2. Wait, and find out it wasn’t all talk, and deal with a destroyed country, millions of dead and their own counterstrike that has killed millions more and started another horrifying war.
3. Strike now, because they decide the stakes are too high to wait it out and hope the Iranians aren’t really serious about seeing them blown off the map.
None of the choices are good. I really don’t understand your assertions that “the iranian people will never forgive them…”. Why is that? Since when does the Iranian Government (or the Mullahs) really care what their people think? That’s what arresting the newspaper editors is for. As to the problem of irradiating the Palestinians, that isn’t Iran’s problem, is it? They are not Arabs, and don’t care two cents for the Palestinians. Former president rafsemjani stated that to destroy Israel would only require a very few bombs, while Islam as a whole could easily survive any retaliation. That sort of thinking terrifies me, because IT INVALIDATES THE ENTIRE DETTERRANT PRINCIPLE OF “MAD”. As for denying Ahmadinejad ever said anything regarding the destuction of isreal…I leave that to the reporting of reputable, worldwide news organazations. CNN is no right wing network, and they, along with most other news outlets have reported the remarks. You can’t pick and choose your truth according to who reported it.
Celtic-Dragon, where to begin?
Aren’t you just muddying the water by bringing Bin Laden into this? We could get into the argument that by arming, training and funding Bin Laden for decades, and then providing millions of Muslims with grievances they are all but powerless to address, the U.S. did create Al Qaeda, but that’s irrelevant. I don’t think anyone here would be against trying to dismember Al Qaeda and arrest all its leaders. Now what, exactly does that have to do with all those Iraqis we’ve been killing, maiming and dispossessing, and the Iranians to whom we’re itching to do the same?
Your analysis of Iran’s stance is pure cherry-picking. True, a misquote from a puppet president can be made to sound fairly belligerent (though far less so than what Western/Israeli leaders are saying about Iran), but there is still no reason to seriously think that Iran is plotting an attack on Israel. What could they possibly gain from this? You seem to imply that they have some crusade on against the Jews, but what about all the Jews living in Iran? Genocide begins at home. More importantly, the real leader of Iran has committed not to attack another nation. You can choose to disbelieve him and attribute to him whatever hidden motives you will, but you could similarly choose to disbelieve Chirac, DaSilva or Obansajo – it would hardly add up to a case for war against France, Brazil or Nigeria.
But all this is beside the point. Your whole post was based on one fatal assumption.
Indeed. The validity of that analogy is tacitly assumed in all the arguments of Western governments and their supporters, but don’t you see anything wrong with it?
We, as a society, employ policemen to protect us, and (in theory) vet them and make them adhere to our code of conduct. We similarly come up with laws and procedures to decide who is considered to be a criminal, or mentally ill. How does this happen on the world stage? In other words, who the fuck made America the police of the world? In fact, America (unlike Iran) has already violated many of what token international laws we do have, but even if that were not the case, do you not see something wrong with a society where the strongest/tallest/most heavily armed appoints himself sheriff above the law?
And finally
Right. The dissent of a significant number of a country’s citizens is in no way credible, is it? I guess we like to think we’re living in a democracy, and thus that our views matter. Then again, even Kings and Generalissimos have had their policies influenced by popular dissent, when the dissent is strong enough.