Anti War Demonstration - Saturday March 19th

Starting - Hyde Park 12 Noon.

Is anyone going? Hopefully should be able to make it down to London by train. If anyone's going, we should have a meet up. Say Hyde Park Corner, by the statue of Achilles at 12.30? From the build up going in to this, it promises to be quite big. Maybe not as big as the February 15th 2003 demo, but the biggest for quite some time. Key demands are troops out, but I think this one's especially important, with Bush making threatening gestures towards Iran....

 

I wanna but cant. Looked at my work rota the other day and Im working that Sat already had to ask to swap other days for things and I dont work in the most flexible job. I gotta be flexible for them and work whatever extra days....but theyre not very flexible to me. They have let me have one day swapped and are now not sure if I can swap another...if they say no im gonna 'be ill' that day. Rrr bodycare as an employer is a big pooey smell hole...arrgg me feels a big bodycare aimed poofight building up inside me...


arrrr


*SPLAT*

ok so off topic but fraid I wont be there....

xxx

 

oh please.. no derailing.. but 'threatening gestures' talk about reading what you like into situations... enjoy your anti war demonstration.

 

I'd consider American agents selecting sites for military air strikes to be pretty threatening, personally.

 

Hey i'll try to go! I'd love to... It'd be nice to see you all again too.


Sunny
xxx

 

If you believe this to be the case.. http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=2081

I think going on the black segregation thread as a e.g... we all can read way too much into things , i respect that it is a opinion.. i just read it and thought the manipulative git..though i chilled and realised in his opinion and take on the situation his truth is true... i think he is wrong. I don't wish too derail this thread Dok'.. maybe i should just shake my fist at the screen instead ?.

 

watch you dont go blind mathew:sunglasse . but maybe your on your way eh! . will be their meself 19th. /peace /

 

I'm assuming that your point is that the Muslim perspective is a little biased? Well what about The New Yorker?

 

well no.. i just grabbed a site that had the accusations that are being made..to say that i am aware of the theory...It just happened too be the first link with the relevant info on.. maybe that was a bad idea ?. Anyway my point is that if you go too the thread i mentioned http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72947 we all got our knickers in a twist because of a story that was not as controversial as was assumed (well as i assumed anyway).. (if you read the final post) . if i had bothered to go too the horses mouth i would probably have been a bit more aware of the reality..and not got bogged down with media spin.

 

have fun... i have moments of clarity that keep me sane and on the path i follow.

 

Well the point you were making earlier was to disparage the notion of America making threatening gestures. There's a distinct and highly credible possibility that they've already started acquiring miliary targets. Now whether this is just posturing or the prelude to an attack, it is surely threatening, is it not?

Hell, how about something from the horse's mouth?

If that doesn't qualify as threatening, I don't know what does.

 

well we both have our own thoughts on the intentions of Peace-Phoenix connotations , don't we.

unless we are talking pre emptive , or already finalised intentions too attack iran.. then what is the problem.

Its all about the use of military intervention to solve a diplomatic problem .. i don't have a problem with that if all diplomatic options have become void.

What is your view on the subject ?.

 

My view on the subject is that I can't be arsed getting into yet another argument over American foreign policy. I'm quite content to simply settle for pointing out your mistake in denying their 'threatening' posture.

 

? If you see it that way, i see it as seeking knowledge of what is out there...

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,”



‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”

For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)


A war of diplomacy , not bombing the fuck out anything and anyone for purely imperialistic reasons....a war on the terrorisim a war for peace...oh bugger is that in 1984 ?.

The New American Century is not wishing for America to rule the planet , but too have America at the fore front of creating a democratic world..a world at peace. Grandiose i admit.. but worthy goals.. the problem people have is that war can also mean military and civilians colliding.

 

It doesn't matter how you choose to see it. The actions are still threatening. To threaten is to imply a negative consequence if the party in question doesn't comply with your wishes. America is adopting a threatening posture.

 

Of course it does , this is the point it seems i am failing to make.

I agree

Yes possibly , but the intentions and motives are what we seem to disagree on....so yes your fundementaly right with you logic.. but you choose to see the situation diffrent, so do i.

This is usualy were i start putting words in your mouth , right ?... ok not this time.

I hope you understand what the fuck i have been trying to say.... this you can disagree with , but shall we not try and prove each others stance wrong.. i just would be happy if you know what i am trying to say ?.

 

I understand what you're trying to say. We'll never agree, which is why I'm not getting into that conversation. The only point that I was debating with you was wheter or not America was being threatening. Whatever political persuasion or world view you choose to adopt, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that America isn't adopting a threatening posture towards Iran.
​

 

Thanks.

 

I'm going.

 

i might go