Press Conference for Oct 26 in San Francisco

On Saturday, October 26th, thousands of people will converge on the streets of San Francisco to protest the war in Iraq in an event organized by the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. Many of us, who think that more than a simple rally and march will be necessary to stop this war, will be there too. Anti-War Action is organizing direct action that same day to offer an alternative for those protesters who wish to step beyond the limits of the organized protest. All are welcome to join the planned direct action, and create and determine their own forms of protest this Saturday. This contingent will rally and march with A.N.S.W.E.R. and then gather for the action at 2:30 pm on the corner of Grove and Polk in front of the civic center during the final rally.

There is a time and place for direct action, so long as it's non-violent (period -- sorry, all you radicals, but that's my view and you will not win with revolution).

However, it should also be noted clearly that the FBI and other organizations were the leading sources working to create direct action in the peace movements of the 1960s/70s. That's right....... The FBI. Why? COINTELPRO programs were designed to make it easy for the press to demonize protestors, and for the law enforcement agencies to crack down on protestors. I'm not making this stuff up. Study history. Much of this was revealed in Congressional hearings in the 1970s.

There's a lot of talk in the indymedia.org community about International Answer being linked to Stalinists and on and on. Ultimately, it really doesn't mater. There will be 50,000 or more in San Francisco tomorrow, and the vast majority of them don't give a rats ass about all the ideological points that the far left (insert your title here) focuses on. I'm disgusted by all the infighting and positioning by the left. It shows that the current movement has been unable to focus on the most important issues:

1) global US empire designed by the Bush "neocons" is out in the open, and it bodes ill for the U.S. constitution, civil liberties, and the welfare of the rest of the world;

2) Iraq is not a threat that is worth going to war over; even the CIA's recent statements indicate as much; nearly all wars are built on lies, period.

The post above is highly suspect. There is no discussion about what sort of action is planned. For all you know, it could be influenced by the FBI.

All you far left folks that keep calling for actions, what bothers me is that you maintain that standard protests don't do anything. That's a crock, and you know it. The Bush admin has cut back quite a bit on it's initial rhetoric (never planed to go to congress, for example). This movement has done wonders in short order. There is no draft. There is no major fighting at this juncture. To have what we have now compared to where we were in the 1960s goes to show that we have success and that the American people are ripe and ready to start looking at things with a critical eye.

WE DON'T NEED NOR CAN EVER HAVE REVOLUTION. GET OVER OIT.

EVOLUTION IS THE ANSWER.

you can be all for non-violence. it's a very useful tactic in many situations. and i would hope that noone tries to claim that violence is the only tactic and one that should be used in any and all situations.

i don't think you have to be a marxist to recognize that the history of the world is one of economic/class warfare. those who control wealth and resources have been able to do so on the backs of the multitudes they exploit, co-opt, murder, placate with crumbs, etc.

history also has shown that violence is needed is many circumstances. much more often than not is completely absurd to ask the oppressor to remove the boot from one's neck. revolutionary violence takes place most often because *no other option remains*...think about it.

take the boot off my neck.

Direct Action is nothing more than a cover for those who cannot make intelligent, persuasive arguments.

Whatever is planned for today's "direct action" will only further demonstrate to the world those fools that take to the streets to get what they want that they can't achieve democratically.

So Sam, does that mean you oppose Bush's plan to attack Iraq?

Let's ask a different question.

Is the use of violence in demonstrations consistent
with the demonstrators' intent to oppose violence and war?

Let's answer just wondering's question, first.
Shifting the burden of proof is an infantile evasion tactic for whining cringers.

"Is the use of violence in demonstrations consistent
with the demonstrators' intent to oppose violence and war?"

No. It is very hypocritical of the demonstrators. But that's notheing new.

Should "Direct Action" continue to promote their violent ways, a descrete operation to lessen their membership should be implemented.

keep fantasizing, there, keyboard cowboy

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/10/1539578_comment.php#1539622

Fred Hampton - "Actually, these guys are pretty good at making fantasy come to pass."

Are you actually threatening our lives, or just talking out your ass from the safety of distance like the coward you are?