Millions join anti-war protests worldwide

Millions of people worldwide are joining in demonstrations against a possible US-led war against Iraq. Hundreds of rallies and marches are taking place in up to 60 countries this weekend.

Crowds have been gathering in London, where a rally culminating in Hyde Park is expected to draw more than half a million protesters.

Massive demonstrations - a day after UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix issued a largely positive assessment of the UN's disarmament process in Iraq - are also being organised in Rome, Berlin and New York.

Tens of thousands of people braved bitter weather to converge on the German capital from the east and west of the city.

Along with France, Germany has been one of the most vociferous opponents of war with Iraq.

The BBC's Ray Furlong in Berlin says a real cross-section of people are taking part in the demonstration - young students, families with children, as well as pensioners - reflecting the strong anti-war feeling that runs right through German society.

And demonstrators in Paris are preparing to march on the city's traditional rallying point - the Place de la Bastille.

Some of the first protests on Saturday were seen in New Zealand, as environmental pressure group Greenpeace flew a plane over Auckland harbour trailing a banner reading "No War, Peace Now".

About 5,000 marched through Auckland and a similar number in the capital Wellington.

Rallies are being held in several cities in Australia, where a protest in Melbourne on Friday drew a crowd estimated by organisers at 150,000 - the largest there since anti-Vietnam War marches 30 years ago.

In Seoul - capital of South Korea, one of the staunchest US allies in Asia - hundreds of demonstrators rallied, shouting chants such as "Bush, Terrorist!" and carrying banners urging "Drop Bush, not bombs".

In London, organisers are confidently predicting the country's largest anti-war protest.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered a fall in popularity following his staunch support of US plans to launch military action against Saddam Hussein.

"We believe that the London demonstration will be one of the biggest and the most pivotal because the British Government is actively involved in the build up to war and the British people definitely do not want war," said Stop The War UK leader Andrew Murray.

Speakers at the rally in Hyde Park include Charles Kennedy, leader of Britain's second-biggest opposition party and US activist Jesse Jackson.

In New York a protest is scheduled to start at 1200 local time (1700GMT) near UN headquarters - the currently scene of intense diplomatic discussions following Friday's report by Hans Blix.

Celebrities and activists such as Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and black activist Angela Davis will be attending the demonstration.

And they be joined by some families of the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center, marching as "9/11 Families for Peace."

Anti-war activists in Turkey are calling on fellow citizens to simultaneously turn off all lights at 2000 local time (2200 GMT) as a novel sign of support for anti-war sentiment.

In Malaysia - a predominantly Muslim state - hundreds demonstrated outside the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur bearing banners and placards with slogans such as: "No war. Stop US aggression" and "No more blood for oil".

And in Thailand about 2,000 people - mostly Muslims - rallied in front of the US and UK embassies in the capital on Saturday.

Protests of varying sizes were also reported in: Japan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Cyprus, Spain, Syria, Egypt and Iraq.

The tiny South Pacific island nation of Fiji also saw its share of anti-war sentiment, with an anti-war group sending floral messages to foreign embassies urging them to put pressure on the US and its allies to avoid war.

There is nothing "good" about such coverage.

Well, it was okay but they probably could have devoted more time to it and followed-up with a few more interviews of the participants.

This protest was oragnized by Communists and socialists around the world to oppose US action and US success. They are knee-jerk anti-Americans who will support a brutal dictator staying in power so long as it frustrates the cause of freedom.

These were anti-war protests. Some communists may have participated or even been part of the planning or organizing, but they were not communist lead protests as you suggest.

For CNN to allow willing or unwilling dupes of this agenda to bleat in their ininformed way allows the dissempling nature of the protests to succeed.

CNN in this case was reporting on a very large worldwide event in the name of free people everywhere.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEACE VS. WAR. THE WAR IS ON AND WAS STARTED BY THE TERRORISTS. This is about whether freedom will prevail or whether fear and terrorism will prevail.

No it isn't. Not even close. It is about attacking Iraq for its oil. Has nothing to do with freedom beyond saying no to aggession and imperialism.

thanks for CNN and other outrages of international journalism we have the equivalent of a group arguing for appeasement to Japan after pearl harbor. It is mind-boggling.

What is mind-boggling is your last statement. When did Iraq attack us?

Richard W.

These were anti-war protests. Some communists may have participated or even been part of the planning or organizing, but they were not communist lead protests as you suggest.

This is simply UNTRUE. the organization ANSWER organized the rallies globally and is setup by the Socialist Workers Party. This is a Communist splinter party that ironically was set up to *support* the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary in 1956. Some invasions are okay in their book. ... Yes, the marches were indeed "communist lead". I do agree that most people joining these marches were dupes and not Commies.

It is about attacking Iraq for its oil. Has nothing to do with freedom beyond saying no to aggession and imperialism. I am sorry but moronic drivel like this convinces nobody here, as we see the arguments and discuss and refute them daily. "about oil" is the lamest and most illogical argument you can make.

The war if three is one (and it should happen as soon as possible) is about LIBERATING IRAQ and making the world safer from terrorists, Weapons of Mass destruction, and evil dictators who engage in violence against their own people and other nations.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844104/posts

I said: "Thanks for CNN and other outrages of international journalism we have the equivalent of a group arguing for appeasement to Japan after pearl harbor. It is mind-boggling.

You said: "What is mind-boggling is your last statement. When did

Iraq attack us?"

You are a bit uninformed.

Iraq attacked us in 1993 when they supported the first WTC attack. Iraq again attacked us in 1993 by attempting to assasinate Pres. Bush senior. Iraq for years harbored terrorists who killed Americans - like Abu Nidal - and trained terrorists in hijackings and even chemical/bio weapons.

A whole book was written on this, Laurie Myroie's "Saddam: study of revenge"

http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm

this reviewer wrote:
"This reviewer believes that Mylroie has correctly pinpointed Saddam Hussein as the source of terrorist attacks on Americans, including the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted assassination of former president George H. W. Bush. The Clinton administration, wittingly or unwittingly, has chosen the path of self-delusion: to not investigate the matter seriously. In this way, unpleasant policy options have not been articulated and discussed. Yet, the failure of U.S. officials to address the question of state sponsorship of terrorism will have significant future costs. It encourages future terrorist attacks by eliminating the costs of retribution from the calculations of leaders such as Saddam Hussein."

Saddam's genocide:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction against Kurds:

http://www.joshuakucera.com/halabja.htm

saddam's torture:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jackstraw1.html

saddam's atrocities and oppression:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823242/posts

... NOW YOU KNOW HOW EVIL SADDAM IS, UNDERSTAND WHO HE IS TRAINING AND HELPING ...

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4296646,00.html

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824599/posts

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29927

AND WHAT ABOUT THE MEETINGS BETWEEN 9/11 HIJACKER AND THE IRAQI SPY ...

"Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan.

Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.'

Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience.

On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September."

Yeah, maybe Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
maybe. Maybe all his Anthrax is really gone despite the unlikelihood of it. Maybe despite harboring several Al Quaeda operatives and running a totalitarian regime, these terrorists are just slipping by his ever-present secret police.

But it is simply wrong to believe that Iraq hasnt already harmed us and further that it doesnt pose a threat. It has harmed us and it does pose a major threat due its knowledge and pursuit of WMDs and its support (still ongoing!!) of terrorists.

The true nature of the war on terror (so simplistic to think it is just about Osama):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/793094/posts

Dont lay down the lame line about war for oil and show your ignorance. At least read up about what is REALLY going on through the links above and THEN come to conclusions. You may still beleive (wrongly imho) that war is not the way to handle Saddam, but AT LEAST make your judgement based on facts and real threats Saddam poses and not shallow naivite. Thanks!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.