Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Thu

04

Oct

2007

WANTED - Who killed the anti-war movement?
Thursday, 04 October 2007 22:39
by Gabriele Zamparini

After the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington – and in spite of nationalist propaganda of unprecedented levels coming from the warmongers and their bowing and scraping servants in the media – the hopes for a global, really internationalist anti-war movement for peace and justice were very promising. Many objective factors contributed to those hopes: the most despicable American citizen was co-opted to be the White House’s resident by his father’s friends sitting at the Supreme Court; a well known gang of bloodthirsty psychopaths formed his infamous Junta; important parts of the American establishment were critical or very critical of the Bush Junta’s criminal plans and many governments voiced their opposition to those plans, which would bring to the unprecedented 2003 UN tsunami.

Even though the brainwashing for the war of aggression against Afghanistan worked very well, there was a very high and organized opposition in the US and in the UK for the coming war of aggression against Iraq. That opposition was much higher in the rest of the world and possibly for the first time in history, thanks also to the Internet, we experienced a real internationalist movement connected and mobilized against the World’s warlords. On 15 February 2003 millions of people took the streets of the world to denounce their opposition to the mass murderers’ plans; where the United Nations failed, the United Nations’ Peoples claimed their democratic sovereignty: DON’T ATTACK IRAQ – NOT IN OUR NAME.

Four and half years later, the anti-war movement is just a shadow of itself while in Iraq the genocide of a whole People and the annihilation of the whole country is business as usual; the banality of evil in XXI Century flavour.

What happened?

Of course, everybody agrees with Howard Zinn:
“...there is no magical panacea, only persistence."
But in these past few years the anti-war movement’s establishment has taken all the wrong decisions and the worst directions. In the US especially, the anti-war planners wanted to go mainstream.

The oldest, most experienced and committed segments of the movements have been isolated because too “old fashioned” and not presentable to the “new friends”, the generous foundations linked to the Democratic Party. Socialism and Marx can’t really be welcomed at fundraising dinners and cocktail parties.

In spite of the many anti-war planners’ claims that the Israel Lobby has no real power to influence the US government’s policies, that Lobby is so very powerful to influence even the anti-war movement from within. The Palestine issue needed to be downplayed and many Palestine’s supporters and campaigners have been marginalized.

That part of the movement who would keep asking questions about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington (please, note: questions doesn’t mean conspiracy theories) have also been isolated and now whoever dares to question the official truth of those events is labeled as conspiracy nut.

We all rightly criticized that most of the mainstream media journalists have been embedded to the US Army, but at the same time the anti-war movement’s establishment has been in bed with the Democratic Party. In both cases, the show hasn’t been pretty.

Continuously lecturing about democracy, the anti-war movement’s planners have taken the most important decisions in name of the anti-war movement without consulting with anybody, let alone a real democratic process where those guidelines were discussed and chosen or rejected.

While Iraq was being consciously brought into a civil war by the occupation, who decided the support given by the anti-war movement to the infamous political process and the outrageous'Welcome given to Maliki'?

Who decided the shameful, complete silence of the anti-war movement when the legitimate president of Iraq was being illegally lynched by that scandalous trial and then finally brutally assassinated by those sectarian collaborationists who were also carrying out mass murdering and ethnic cleansing against innocent people? Who decided the almost unanimous support for Moqtada al-Sadr’s movement while its militia, the Mahdi Army, has been carrying out atrocious crimes against humanity? Why has there been such a complicit silence, when not an active defense, toward the notorious Iraq Body Count. Who decided that the anti-war movement couldn’t express sympathy to the Iraqi resistance?

All these and many other important decisions, important also for the anti-war movement’s directions, were taken by a very tiny minority of intellectuals and planners, in the solitude of their Ivory Tower. No open debate was allowed. The result has been a complete catastrophe, when not associating the anti-war movement with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, as in the case of the shocking support to Moqtada al-Sadr and the silence around his murderous Mahdi Army, a support and a silence that still persist, in spite of tons of documents, reports, testimonies, denounces, articles and an ocean of blood. (Just read one of the latest of those documents, the recently published Amnesty International’s report, Iraq: human rights abuses against Palestinian refugees).

The anti-war movement’s elites have barred any open debate on many fundamental questions, imposing to the anti-war movement a direction decided in other quarters and leaving the millions of people with the only choice to take it or to leave it. Millions have left.
 
More from this author:
Lynching Saddam - Part 10: Virtue, Terror and the Western public opinion’ s bloodthirsty schizophrenia (8249 Hits)
by Gabriele Zamparini, The notorious Kafka-esque trial is over; the Baghdad’s bordello turned its red lights off. Iraq President...
Iraq Genocide: Silence is complicity (5133 Hits)
by Gabriele Zamparini On September 18, the Associated Press sent out the following news item: IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran...
The Oracle Iraq Body Count (3633 Hits)
by Gabriele Zamparini The Toronto Star informed us: "The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 ...
The New Iraq Horror Show (4416 Hits)
by Gabriele Zamparini "I always thought it was very important that Saddam Hussein be deposed." - Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the...
Why is Antiwar.com hiding the Iraq Genocide? (3225 Hits)
by Gabriele Zamparini Dear Margaret Griffis, AntiWar.com I hope you’re well. I read on Antiwar.com that you edit the website’s...
Related Articles:
U.S. Military Has Killed Up to 238,000 Iraqi Civilians (11565 Hits)
A just-released study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, published in the current issue of the prestigious British medical journal The...
Who killed Michael Moore? (Why and what's the reason for?) (11194 Hits)
(Inspired by the recent assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya) There's no shortage of outrage on the Left. Plenty...
When "anti-war" doesn't mean anti-war (6510 Hits)
by Mickey Z. A casual stroll through most major U.S. cities would provide ample opportunity to encounter numerous stickers, buttons,...
Who Killed RFK? New BBC Documentary Points to CIA (8932 Hits)
By Chris Floyd Robert F. Kennedy would have been 81 today. Tonight, the BBC will air a documentary about his 1968 assassination detailing...
MASSIVE ANTI-WAR MARCH PLANNED FOR JAN. 27 IN D.C. - PROTESTERS WILL URGE CONGRESS TO STAND UP TO BUSH (6025 Hits)
By David Swanson Peace March Expected to be Among Largest Since War Began NEW YORK, NY -- Americans angered by Bush's plans to escalate the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

a guest said:

0
anti war and aid to iraq
it is ironic,the people of iraq and the american people arrive on commonground,as allies against mercenarie contractors..their eradication from iraq followed by their ban in america..could be the only hope in a bleak and dismal tradgedy.
 
October 05, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
Three speculative reasons.

1.) Jobs and careers are a great idea of keeping people in check. Your not going to earn no money if your going to protest week in week out, and this is where the government has maximum control over you and your family.

Are you going to risk losing your distinquished career over a worthwhile protest?

2.) Maybe the US govenment antissipated a major anti-war collaberation against the Iraqi invasion. The anti-war movenment needs leaders and those leaders were probably infiltrated by FBI/CIA, hence the reason why the movenment lost all directions.

3.) Where's the unity in our communities nowadays?
The old times when people respected each other and used to pull in togeather when money was less available are long gone.
Nowadays people work all over the country earning good money, probably move into three houses or more in their lifetimes (I don't blame them).

How are you suppose to build a close knit community when people are swapping and changing houses every five minutes?


A successful protest needs loyalty and a common unity to stand auy chance of success and this will never happen because our modern lifestyles will never let it happen.
 
October 05, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top