=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2)
Log In to post a reply
60 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
YerArseInParsley
365 posts

priorities and plans
Nov 12, 2002, 15:29
"police would wade in with riot gear straight away."
Thats a tactical consideration. I can't discuss tactics obviously. And incase I'm sounding too grand, the solution to this problem wasn't mine.

"this time it's done by some random person who thinks BP are something to do with bombing Iraq"
I am a random person, and proud of it. Oil profits link BP amongst others to the bombing of Iraq.

"These people *do* know Iraq exists - how would a fuel cut make them realise and agree with your political opinion?"

Its not a political opinion, its a moral opinion.
I have met folk who don't know Iran from Israel, who haven't heard of the Khmer Rouge or the Sex Pistols. They do remember the oil blockade though.

"And, beyond any such symbolism, how would it prevent the bombing of Iraq?"
It probably won't if the symbolism is ignored. Nuking every British city won't prevent the bombing in Iraq. However, occupying Menwith Hill or Fylingdales won't prevent the bombing of Iraq either and are just as likely to incur the heavy police tactics you fear ( though without incriminating myself or blowing any plans I'm all for those actions too). Nothing short of a new american revolution will prevewnt the bombing in Iraq imo, what I am proposing is the widest reaching protest I can by learning from recent protests. Lets compare how much press coverage the last Menwith Hill protest got compared to the last oil blockade. And yes, it probably will impede the logistics of the UK militarys if the whole country is brought to a standstill. And the tactic could as readily be copied by US protestors, which may save Iraqi lives. However, the symbolism is important, as is making clear to the oil companies they will not be allowed to keep their filthy lucre.

"whilst still grandly comparing yourself to an assassin of Hitler"
The truth of an argument is tested at the extremes of an argument which is why I raise Ribentrop. I could also have compared myself to a striking fireman, but even that is too grand. I did try to find an humble example when I compared myself to a pretzel.

"It presumes that I know how much this'd stop a war with Iraq but don't want to risk my own neck"
Risking ones own life is relatively easy morally, and I didn't impugn you that way. Risking a strangers life is obviously more dubious, thats what we are arguing about. Doing nothing or being ineffective is worse in the face of this threat.

"if this is the army making war then they are surely just as guilty whether they 'want' to do it or not...the most bizarre thing I've heard any non-military person say "
No, I disagree. The army is a tool of the state, and the state is in the pockets of the corportations. Attacking the army seems like attacking the police - the wrong targets imo, or at least culpable than many, and the scary riot police you forsee are a lot less scary than the commandos assigned to keep military bases open at time of war ( or permanently in Faslane). So far I've only done military bases. In the oil war I'm aiming for the commander in chief and his paymasters.
In reply to:
Re: WWIII will be the last war (Merrick)		 Replies:
Re: priorities and plans (grufty jim)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index