Originally Posted by Torog
The Anti-War Movement Will Change its Song if the War Comes Home
Chicago Flame ^ | 1/9/06 | By Christopher Skeet
sounds like drivel ann coulter would produce.
Another Christmas break has come and gone without anything unusual occurring. That is, nothing unusual relative to the times. I mean, sure, two Iraqi children were killed by "militants" who machine-gunned their family's car.
I mean, sure, once the iraqis bgin voting full-swing, nobody will ever try to shoot at somone else's car again. just look at the inner-city streets of america!
Around 125 Shi'ite pilgrims were blown to pieces by "insurgents" in Karbala. In Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah "rebels" beheaded three schoolgirls. "Separatists" beheaded two more civilians in southern Thailand. And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, aside from banning all Western music and a few domestic newspapers, declared that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
During the time of the civil rights movement, many black churches were burned to the ground. Many blacks themselves were hanged from trees and their bodies burned while their feet twitched. The KKK and other white nationalist movements call for the eradication of all non-whites. That was about fifty years ago, probably more. What's the difference? Isn't the constitution a gurantee of safety from enemies both foreign and domestic?
Like I said, nothing unusual.
One way to explain these phenomena is that the terrorists are really CIA agents tasked with perpetuating the war on terror so Bush can use oil profits in order to bribe Fox News to lead the media blackout concerning the landing strip being built by Halliburton in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge for gay Martians to land at and, in collusion with Zionists, secretly control the planet from underground bunkers in Crawford. I'll leave it to the chaps of Leaflet Division at International Socialist to fill you in on the details.
Oh please. This guy is truly a propaganda expert. He reveals the truth and then couples it with lunacy.
A more likely explanation is that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the atrocities being committed worldwide on anybody who isn't a Wahhabi extremist. This past month, terrorist networks were broken up in Germany, Spain, and France, all countries which steadfastly oppose U.S. intervention in Iraq. Michael Moore, in a truly rare moment of insight, once pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists, by attacking liberal cities, most likely killed many more Democrats than Republicans. Exactly. The term "infidel" applies to Kerry voters and European Yank-bashers as well. As Hizballah leader Hussein Massawi once summed it up, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
It's funny how Bin laden stated that his group only attacks countries that pose a threat to the muslim world. Spain had troops in the middle east and after they were bombed, they were forced to re-examine if this "war on terror" is worth it. they decided it wasn't and the troops were withdrawn. Now they can go back to ciesta and smoking hashish all night long. what's wrong with that?
Lets hypothetically assume the jihadists and the extreme left together achieve their goals. The U.S. military is crushed in Iraq. Israel is nuked. Al-Qaeda establishes a caliphate stretching from Morocco to the Philippines. America crumbles from a capitalist superpower into a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Now what?
Okay. So when america wins a war, it's okay to go in and pillage, but if "freedom hating muslims" were ever to declare victory, it's a different story. How're the pullout plans for the bases in germany and japan going?
Now that the mean ol' warmongering neo-con cowboys are gone, will bin Laden accept the olive branch offered by Western peace movements? Al-Qaeda considers Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shi'ites, Druze, and moderate Sunnis as infidels worthy of decapitation. How likely, then, would ragtag groups of bongo-beating, impulse-driven atheists would make bin Laden's A-list?
if bin laden didnt accept the peace branch, then by all means kill him. you dont have to bomb several countries to do so. besides didnt he die about twelve times now?
If it ever came down to a final clash of civilizations between the jihadists and the anti-war crowd, I'm putting my money on the jihadists.
but i thought siding with jihadists was an act of terrorism.
It's hard to imagine legions of third-world, battle-hardened fanatics being outfought by a conglomerate of metrosexuals who can't go half a day without another Starbucks fix.
and so to remedy this, citizens are being unarmed left right and centre. makes perfect sense, also along with the dissolution of posse comitatus.
While the peaceniks smother the jihadists with love, the jihadists will smother the peaceniks with blankets of bomb shrapnel which can penetrate even the loudest cries of, "Oh my gawd, like, I didn't even vote for Bush!"
i'm sure many iraqis would never have voted for saddam if given the chance, but coalition forces went in and blew them all to hell anyway. What's the difference?
Holding in front of you a hardcover copy of Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" will stop an AK-47 barrage for only so long before 7.62mm bullets begin tearing through your internal organs, not to mention your brand new Che shirt.
Cute. So why isnt this guy on the front lines instead of sitting at some desk if he's so "outraged"? Did he learn about 7.62 mm rounds from the internet or the discovery channel or sumthin?
Realize that al-Qaeda wants us dead regardless of our political affiliations or our personal views on the merits of the Iraq War. For all the miscalculations the Bush administration has made in Iraq, it has still kept the battle off American soil. If the U.S. military loses, as some campus activists openly hope for, there will be nobody to protect them when RPG rounds start slamming into their film festivals.
