Posted on 09/26/2005 12:06:40 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington
Saturday's demonstration in Washington, in favor of immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, was the product of an opportunistic alliance between two other very disparate "coalitions." Here is how the New York Times (after a front-page and an inside headline, one of them reading "Speaking Up Against War" and one of them reading "Antiwar Rallies Staged in Washington and Other Cities") described the two constituenciess of the event:
The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.
The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists—who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.
Bumping that.
good read.
With all the resources available; how is it the Demrat/Librats/whomevers. . .insist on perpetrating the myth rather than facing/reporting the truth of these 'activists'. . .so called; who in the real world are no more than idealogical vermin.
He's very good on this topic
I concur with you.
I'm not sure how I feel about IBD's thrust toward technical analysis, but it is a good paper, IMO. Yes, I saw that article.
I could only wish that the MSM would point out the communist affiliation and genesis of the "anti war" movement. They never will, though, which really tells us something about who they are.
IIRC, there was also an antiwar movement before WWII, led probably by the same people, the commies.
On a few website bulletin boards, I have used the term PEACE NAZI to describe the peace
movement in general, and one person asked me for an explanation as to what the term means
and why I say it. Here is my answer:
It is intentionally derogatory, and I use it because I believe it has to be said.
It has to do with the foundation of the PEACE movement in the US and abroad and their
Communist foundation, and how the majority of the signs held and slogans chanted are not
about peace or genuine concern for the people of two warring countries, it is about the
anti-American attitudes and the violence-inducing signs and slogans calling for violence
against American Troops and President Bush.
Carrying signs calling on troops to kill their officers, to bomb Texas, for Bush to choke on
a pretzel and die, for troops to shoot their officers, signs that call for communist
revolution, starting fights with people who disagree with you while carrying a peace sign,
trying to steal my money in Boston while carrying a peace sign and then telling me because
you were shamed into giving back the money that means you are ok after all...
Things like that.
I will NOT stop using it. It is intended to make the peace protestor think.
After all the horrors we found in Iraq, you should all be thankful we went in and invaded to
remove that madman. Yet, the mantra has changed, it is now against occupation! Still, not
one PEACE NAZI has apologized and admitted we were right. All they do is complain that a
people that were under slavery for 30 years have gone looting, and who do they blame? Why
the US!! We did nothing to stop it! Maybe because we stayed out of the crowd because the
PEACE NAZIS would have complained we didn’t let them vent their anger??
(As a side note, people who are now called PEACE NAZIS didn’t call on the LAPD or Federal
Troops to stop the LA riots after the Rodney King riots, did they? They told us all to step
back and let them vent their anger, yet all of a sudden, we are supposed to go in and use
force to stop rioters in Iraq?)
And to top it off, we are flushing out the terrorists in places like Fallujah, the places
where the Murderous Mullahs all take refuge, and the PEACE NAZIS have not ONCE held a rally
to decry the beheadings of Americans or Iraqi CARE workers! Not one PEACE NAZI rally held to
call for justice for the Killers of Daniel Pearl or any foreigner killed in Iraq!
We never intended to occupy a country like SYRIA has the last 20 years, and where are the
PEACE NAZIS and their signs calling on SYRIA to leave Lebanon? They are non existent. The
Syrians killed tens of thousands, chasing little children into bedrooms and shooting them
point blank.
Did you know there was a Christian Community in Beirut before 1985? Now, they are almost
either all killed or fled from the Syrian backed Junta, and not a peep from the PEACE NAZIS,
only against American forces sent to Beirut to keep peace. Why aren’t the PEACE NAZIS
arguing for the return of the Christian Community back to Beirut where they lived for 2
Millennium?
Where were the PEACE NAZIS when Israel was blockaded in 1967? Where were the PEACE NAZIS
when Israel was attacked on her Holy Day of Yom Kippur in 1973? Where were the PEACE NAZIS
when the PLO was shelling Katyusha rockets into Israel in 1982? Oh, Yeah, I remember, they
were telling Israel to stop defending themselves!
In fact, there is not a single country that we ever went to war with that we stayed as the
government power for more than 10 years! We always returned it to the people.
And that brings up another point: PEACE NAZIS are NOT against war, they are against wars
that the US is engaged in to overthrow pro-Communist or PRO-radical Islamic regimes or PRO-
Maoist/PRO-Stalinist regimes.
My point here, is simple: These COMMIES are not for peace. If they were, they would have
been screaming about Clinton killing innocents to keep his sexual scandals off the tv;
they would have been screaming for the Palestinian Liberation Organization to stop killing
Jews;
they would have been screaming for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop killing Jews;
they would have been screaming for the Hutus and Tutsis to make peace;
they would have been screaming for that madman Saddam to stop killing Kurds or Iranians;
they would have been screaming for the Turks to stop killing Kurds or Greeks;
they would have been screaming for the Chinese to stop killing Vietnamese in 1982;
they would have been screaming for the Angolan Army to stop killing with the help of the
Cuban Army in the 1980's;
they would have been screaming for the Muslims to stop killing Christians in Indonesia,
Malaysia, and China and North Korea;
They would have been screaming for the Sudanese to stop the torture and slave trade which
continues today in Darfur;
They would have been screaming when the Syrians invaded Lebanon in 1985 and have continued
an occupation of Lebanon since the 1980's;
They would have been screaming when Pol Pot started a genocide in 1975;
They would be screaming now about Mugabe killing all the white farmers in Africa in
Zimbabwe;
They would have been screaming at the murders caused by the African National Congress and
their necklacing of prisoners and at Winnie Mandela who was convicted of murder, yet the
communists are silent;
They would have been screaming about Tiananmen Square, but they are silent;
They would have been screaming about the repression in Cuba and why so many people have
chosen to flee in rickety little boats, but instead they lionize that dictator, Castro;
They would have been screaming about the invasion of South Vietnam in 1975 where the north
started a genocide campaign in direct violation of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and
caused over 2 million Vietnamese to flee in little boats that got picked up by ships like
the one I was on in 1981;
They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally
target innocent school age children;
They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally
target innocent people on buses, or pizza parlors, or weddings, or wheel-chair bound
invalids on cruise ships, or Olympic hotels;
Except, the only time they scream is when the US is at war against a tyrant who is support
by Russia or France.
In much of the world, the antics and policies of these PEACE NAZIS would result in jail – or
worse. Cuba, China and many socialist countries routinely eliminate protests – and
protesters – against the government and its leaders. It seems ironic that the ultimate goal
of these protesters is to transform America into the kind of government that tolerates no
dissent.
And since NAZI is one of the most vile insults you can give someone in our last two
generations, I call them PEACE NAZIS, for they are not for peace, they are for war, they are
for the overthrow of my country and into communism and anarchy, and they are a violent bunch
who base their foundation on lies and the telling of lies and the repeating of lies.
Forgot to mention maybe get a little roll in the hay with a protest babe. See any free love signs?
Not in the least from one who was there.
Galloway is very articulate, and the debate was hugely entertaining. They engaged in performance art exchanging insults with often esoteric words aka "poppinjay," and had nice contrasting styles that added a nice balance. It was more heat than light, but it was a good show.
Yes. That's the sentence that stood out for me. Liberal is anything but.
"It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side."
On the left there are no principles, only the ends justify the means.
"It was an Anti American protest rally"
BINGO!!! Well said and you hit the nail on the head.
How can these people have such deep hate for a nation that allows them to be public idiots?
It's not by coincidence that the Democratic party is represented by the jackass. It sorta says it all, doesn't it?
Nana
I was in the audience. Hitchens was very clever. He asked the time keeper to let him know when he had two minutes left of his fifteen. He had first turn and spent the first thirteen minutes logically making the case for the war in Iraq, the topic. In the last two minutes he reamed Galloway personally for Oil for Food corruption, supporting Iraqi terrorists, supporting Saddam, supporting Assad right now.
He also had handed out materials to the crowd cueing outside before the debate detailing Galloway's misdeeds.
When Galloway then came on, he was totally steamed. He immediately went into self-defense and ignored the topic. He attacked Hitchens personally too. But he never quite got around to making a coherent case against the war.
#26---pretty weird perspective, dude.
That argument is what's classically called
a "reductio ad absurdum"---the idea that "it all
comes down to" the desire "to sell books".
REALLY!!!
bttt
BTTT
You and I are the only ones here who will admit that George Galloway is talented
I don't think you understand "reductio ad absurdum". It's not just making an argument that you think is absurd.
It's essentially the same thing as disproof by contradiction: you assume that someone's argument is correct, then show that it leads to logically contradictory results (like 0 == 1, or puppies == kittens), thus demonstrating that the original assumption was false rather than true.
"Absurd" in this context means "logically impossible", not "ridiculous".
-ccm
Nice piece
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.