I often write "anti-war" in inverted commas,
since many of these organisations actually
support wars and violence,
such as the violent Palestinian resistance
and even the violent Iraqi resistance.
Anti-War, My Foot by Christopher Hitchens
- pointing out the vast number of people at
"anti-war" demos
that support violence.
I'm sure the majority would support the
Palestinian resistance, for example.
"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."
I'm "anti-war" myself!
Hey, if you can't beat them, join them.
Using their own definitions,
I'm "anti-war" myself!
I totally support the war being waged by the heroic
freedom fighters of the American military, of course.
But I am completely opposed to the violent illegal war being waged by the
fascist warmongering Iraqi resistance.
The Iraqi resistance should stop, and all foreign jihadis get out of Iraq.
Their violence is the root cause of the conflict.
If they stopped, there would be peace.
So I'm anti-war too!
Stop the war!
Stop the jihad!
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia out of Iraq now!
Stop the jihad now!
End the Islamist violence against infidels!
Stop the jihad in Iraq and Palestine!
Peace on earth now!
These are not anti-war.
They are anti-west.
They are linked to the
Socialist Workers Party,
who want to take away our freedom
and establish a totalitarian communist state.
The fanatics of the IAWM
claimed that Iran has democratic elections:
"The US wants to paint Iran as a fascist state with Ahnadinejad as the new Hitler
(just like Saddam before him).
Iran is a modern country ...
It is one of the more democratic states in the Middle East.
Iran has democratic elections and a powerful reform movement,
...
It is the US and its allies that are undemocratic.
...
In Iraq the US are trying to rig the parliament"
The SWP
openly supports Hezbollah, 2006.
"we are happy to join the Arab masses in expressing our solidarity with the fighters of Hizbollah
and our hope is that they succeed in defeating the Israeli assault on Lebanon."
IAWM discussions obviously represent diverse points of view,
but it is interesting how many "anti-war" people
became pro-Saddam once the fighting started,
and go on to
sympathise with Saddam's
"resistance"
after the liberation.
See
COME ON THE IRAQIS!!,
and other openly pro-Saddam posts
here
and
here
and
here.
I'm also sure
(though I can't find the reference) that,
during the Iraq War,
the SWP said
the Iraqi troops
had a right
to resist the invasion.
In other words, that
Saddam's Iraqi fascists
had a right
to kill the brave Allied troops coming into their country.
Open IAWM support for the Iraqi fascist "resistance"
- "For the sake of the suffering Iraqi people we must hope
that Iraqi resistance and protest here in the west force the US
to pull out as quickly as possible."
Rory Hearne of the IAWM, letter to
Village,
19-25 Feb 2005:
"It is the historic global anti-war movement, manifest on February 15th 2003
- when over 40 million demonstrated across the world
- and the defiant resistance in Iraq
which have created the crisis for Bush and Blair.
It is only through the continued growth and resistance of these movements
that we can end the bloody occupation of Iraq
and ensure there are no more wars against Bush's "axis of evil""
You would think that,
even if they support their aims
(the end of democracy, and the setting up of an Islamist fascist tyranny),
the "anti-war" people would complain
about the fact that the Iraqi "resistance" is violent.
The IAWM
are not "anti-war".
They are anti-west.
Why is that so hard to understand?
The IAWM hangs out with the child-killers Hamas,
and declines to condemn them.
They are at the conference of the
International Campaign against US and Zionist Occupation,
Cairo, Mar 2005,
which is openly dedicated to
"Supporting the resistance in Palestine and Iraq".
Given that both of these resistances are violent,
it seems strange that "anti-war" people would support them.
Present at this international hate-fest were:
The Irish "Anti-War" Movement is linked to the Socialist Workers Party,
which in 2006 declared open support for the jihad.
See their magazine, Socialist Worker no.262, Aug 2006.
Screenshots taken in case they try to remove the issue.
"SOLIDARITY WITH THE RESISTANCE"
- Open support by the SWP
for the violent, anti-semitic, civilian-targeting, gay-hating,
atheist-hating,
Jew-hating,
Islamic religious fundamentalist terrorist group
Hizbollah
(for there is no other "resistance" to Israel's attack on Hizbollah in Lebanon,
the Lebanese government having wisely chosen to sit it out).
Despite this disgraceful support for violent groups, the SWP
are still welcome at "anti-war" marches such as
this march in Galway,
where a woman actually holds up this issue.
It is spelt out inside the magazine that they openly support Hizbollah:
The Chair of the Irish "Anti-War" (what a joke) Movement,
Richard Boyd Barrett, writes explicitly opposing the disarming of Hizbollah.
"a key part of our task is to resist calls for a western force or Irish troops
to be sent into Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah.
... the people of Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon have the right to resist
colonial aggression and occupation",
says this "anti-war" person.
Another article by some
useful idiot
says:
"We support Hamas and Hizbollah in their courageous stand against imperialism".
Hizbollah, of course, are an agent of Iranian imperialism,
while Hamas want to cleanse Israel of all Jews.
They are not fighting "against imperialism".
They are fighting for jihad.
The SWP editorial
openly supports Hezbollah.
"we are happy to join the Arab masses in expressing our solidarity with the fighters of Hizbollah
and our hope is that they succeed in defeating the Israeli assault on Lebanon."
The Irish "Anti-War" Movement openly admits:
"The IAWM is NOT a "Peace organisation" - there are, at least, 10-12 Peace organisations
in this country, some of them anti-war/some of them not.
The IAWM, as stated in its constitution, is an anti-imperialist organisation
whose main objective is to stop the use of Shannon and other Irish facilities
by the forces of the Empire,
while simultaneously extending support and solidarity with those who are invaded,
and those who fight against that invasion and occupation
by any means at their disposal."
"Anti-War" Ireland
also expressed support for violence
(so long as it is violence by jihadis, not by democracies):
"My personal political position (as a non-pacifist)
is that Hezbullah and any other Lebanese group
were perfectly entitled to defend their country against Israeli aggression.
I would also be understanding of actions taken in defence of Palestinians."
Again, I am not "anti-war" myself.
What I object to is the claim that these people are.
The Irish "Anti-War" Movement also refer to:
"some plans we have to invite a couple of leading Hamas and Fatah militants into Ireland soon".
"The conference will challenge the myths and propaganda peddled by the main stream media and discuss practically how we can build the movement of resistance to war and occupation over the coming months. Unity of the anti war movement across organisational and territorial boundaries and solidarity with those who fight the illegal occupation of their country is what we seek."
I don't see one word of condemnation of the violence of those who "fight" and "resist".
The "anti-war" people are only against some wars, it seems.
The conference also has Lebanese and Iraqi politicians.
No, not tolerant liberal democrats, silly.
Rather, pro-Syrian and pro-al-Sadr politicians, respectively, of course.
Supporting this disgraceful event are the
"anti-war" groups
PANA
and the NGO Alliance.
From his wealthy Dublin suburb
(houses go for well over €1m on his street)
he sneers:
"Four-and-a-half years ago ... an elated George Bush, standing aboard the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln,' declared that "major combat operations have ended in Iraq".
How many more years of infrastructural devastation and deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians are needed before the US administration realises that the Iraqi "war" is unwinnable?"
Tony Allwright
gives him what he deserves:
"As the millionth brave American soldier passes through Shannon, you can almost taste the despair in Brendan Butler's letter .. on having read some rare positive tidings from Iraq, namely that Al Qaeda seems to be on the retreat ...
Harking back to George Bush's (in)famous visit in 2003 to an aircraft-carrier which flew a banner saying "Mission Accomplished", he writes as if he fervently hopes that the latest good news will be similarly confounded, infrastructure further destroyed, civilian deaths continue, the war remain unwinnable."
PANA
is quoted in the
Irish Times,
Fri 25 June 2004,
as supporting the
Iraqi fascist "resistance".
PANA's spokesman
is quoted by the Irish Times
as follows:
"He views Iraqi resistance to occupation as
a legitimate independence struggle,
similar to the Irish and, indeed,
American wars of independence."
If this quote is accurate, then PANA are not anti-war.
They are pro-the other side.
You would think, though, that even if they supported
the goals of the fascist resistance
(an Islamist tyranny, cleansed of infidels),
that they would at least complain about the fact that
the resistance was violent.
Bizarrely, the "anti-war" group
PANA opposes the disarming of Hezbollah,
Aug 2006:
"The resolution's call for the International Force to be used to prevent
the resistance in Lebanon from rearming is recipe for possible future military conflict
between UN forces and the resistance.
...
PANA believes that an Irish Army that was formed as a consequence of a national
war of resistance against an army of occupation has no role
in a war against a national resistance movement."
South Dublin City Anti War Group
(or via here)
claims to be
"against all wars".
But bizarrely, prominent among their "Friends" list
on their front page
is the violent, pro-war group Sinn Fein - IRA,
who have killed over 1,500 people,
and are still killing today.
By their own admission:
"five members of the pacifist Catholic Worker movement made their way into Shannon Airport
and non-violently disarmed a U.S. navy war plane in the early hours of February 3rd. 2003."
And yet they were
acquitted by the jury
- on the grounds that
they had a lawful reason to damage property.
This gives a green light, for example, to any jihadist or fellow traveller
to attack US military equipment in Ireland.
A shameful day for Ireland.
The law must be changed, so that juries
cannot make politicised decisions like this,
completely outside democratic control.
I do not see how what they did
is any different from saboteurs
attacking allied equipment before
D-Day.
Operation Pastorius
was the failed Nazi sabotage attack on the United States in 1942.
Acquitted saboteur, Australian
Ciaron O'Reilly,
has many convictions for attacks on the military of free countries.
Oddly enough, I can't find any attacks by him on the military of dictatorships.
If you know of any, let me know.
The anti-Israel
Derry Anti-War Coalition
destroy offices of US defence company
Raytheon,
Derry, NI, Aug 2006.
"thousands of documents and dozens of computers were burned
and thrown from windows by members of a group that entered at 8am."
They were probably encouraged by the Pitstop Ploughshares verdict,
which gave the green light to this kind of violence.
Leading this attack on the allied military was SWP moonbat
Eamonn McCann.
Every argument he makes could be made against the allied military in WW2.
Why he thinks he is morally different from a saboteur in WW2 I don't know.
Why the left would support such people
is not hard to believe.
The left has a long history
of support for tyrants.
No, the mystery is how people who describe themselves as "anti-war"
and "peace" campaigners
could support violent people.
So here is my question for Dubsky and Pilger:
Even if you support
the goals of the fascist resistance
(an Islamist tyranny, cleansed of infidels),
why don't you at least complain about the fact that
the resistance is violent?
"Anti-war" people are often remarkably non-judgemental about
violence by others
Eoin Dubsky, Feb 2006, says that
by Ireland allowing America to use our airports and airspace,
"we've surrendered any possible moral defence
against countries or terrorists
who may attack us to prevent further military and CIA flights through Ireland".
Again, for someone who is meant to be "anti-war",
Dubsky is remarkably non-judgemental about
violence by other people.
Surely the Islamofascists wishing to prevent military and CIA flights through Ireland
should use protest, diplomacy and sanctions first,
instead of heading straight to violent terrorism against our women and children?
"Anti-war" people are not consistent:
Dubsky's non-judgemental comments about Islamist violence
show a common failing of "anti-war" groups in the West.
Obviously, I think they
have ignorant, naive political ideas which will lead to
the triumph of tyranny, fascism,
genocide and (yes) war worldwide.
But perhaps my main criticism of them is simply their name.
It's easier for me. I make no claims to be anti-war.
I support the military operations of America, Britain and Israel.
I wish their military luck
in defeating and killing Islamist fighters worldwide.
I wish for victory for free countries like Israel,
and defeat for tyrannies like Iran.
My philosophy is consistent, even if you disagree with it.
Unlike the "anti-war" people,
I am not inconsistent or hypocritical.
Iraqi civilians killed (all deliberately) in 2006 by the Iraqi resistance: 16,791.
Iraqi civilians killed (all accidentally) in 2006 by Americans: 225.
In other words, the incredibly careful and skilled
Americans have hardly killed anyone innocent since 2003,
and those that have died have all been killed accidentally
while engaged in street warfare with jihadis.
Almost all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of the resistance, not at the hands of the Americans.
As Glen Reinsford says:
"Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists."
The Irish left's support for the Iraqi fascist "resistance"
"We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S.,
who took to the streets in protest
against this war
and
against Globalism.
We also thank France, Germany and other states
for their position,
which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now."
Are the "anti-war" protesters proud?
Remember these are incredibly violent people that are
thanking you.
Even if you agree with their goals, these are violent, pro-war people.
Shouldn't that disturb you at all?
Interesting how the jihadi thug considers the
anti-globalisation struggle
as part of the same struggle for tyranny and against freedom worldwide.
Which of course it is.
The UCD "Anti-War" Group says
(Feb 01, 2006):
"We express our solidarity with all democratic, secular and progressive opposition forces
in Iraq fighting for US-UK defeat."
Given that this "fighting" involves not parliamentary rhetoric
or civil disobedience (why not?)
but rather actual, literal fighting, that is, violence,
including the
suicide bombing of mosques and crowds of women and children,
it seems amazing that the UCD "Anti-War" Group did not mention this.
Why did the UCD "Anti-War" Group not add a disclaimer,
given the ongoing slaughter of
10,000 or more Iraqis
by people "fighting for US-UK defeat",
to the effect that:
We only support those Iraqis who resist the US occupation through peaceful means.
We condemn the disgusting acts of those who resist the US through violence.
CHALLENGE to the UCD "Anti-War" Group:
Does the UCD "Anti-War" Group support the violent Iraqi resistance?
If not, please issue such a disclaimer,
condemning the violent Iraqi resistance,
and apologising for the ambiguity.
Tell me about it,
and I will happily link to it.
The anti-Israel song
"We will not go down (Song for Gaza)"
by American
Michael Heart
(born Annas Allaf in Syria)
illustrates the ambiguity much of the western left has about anti-western violence.
"We will not go down;
In the night, without a fight;
You can burn up our mosques and our homes and our schools;
But our spirit will never die;
We will not go down;
In Gaza tonight"
Since there is and always has been a "fight" going on, and it has consisted of
endless war crimes
against civilians,
why does the song not condemn it?
"Anarchists"
who hate capitalism.
I find
anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist "anarchists"
baffling.
How could an anarchist
hate capitalism??
How could an anarchist
want to take away economic freedom
and set up a totalitarian collectivist government?
The answer is they're not anarchists, of course. They're socialists.
In fact, they say so on the page.
Without any introduction at all they
start talking about: "bringing socialism about".
So why don't they call themselves socialists (or, more accurately,
totalitarian communists)?
"Anarchist" sounds cooler, I guess,
to the daft young people who fall for this stuff.
Irish "libertarians"
who, strangely, hate capitalism,
America and NATO.
Baffling.
How could a libertarian
hate capitalism and America??
The answer is, of course, they're not libertarians.
I am a libertarian.They are totalitarian communists.
Socialists and communists
And of course, there are
plenty of open, honest enemies of the west in Ireland
in the form of socialists and communists,
still going and unashamed after 100 million dead.
Palestinian sniper
Thaer Hamad killed 7 soldiers, and 3 civilians:
Sergei Birmov, 33,
Vadim Balagula, 32,
and Didi Yitzhak, 66.
Incredibly, instead of executing him, the Israelis have him in jail.
The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (who have carried out many
direct attacks on
Jew civilians, including direct attacks on women and children)
claimed responsibility for the attack.
Yet the Indymedia article
idiotically claims he did not want to kill civilians.
They embed a video from some anonymous Irish jihad-lover
who tells Hamad's family they should be proud of him.
One man emigrating is another man 'fleeing',
Galway "One World" Centre, November 29, 2007.
These pampered western leftists, who have known nothing but freedom all their lives, actually
defend Castro's policy of
denying freedom of movement,
and laugh at those who risk their lives to escape communist rule as "emigrants".
They quote some lackey of the regime who they hosted in Ireland.
Why did they not host a Cuban dissident?
"The crumbling buildings in these barrios demonstrate the high price that years of sanctions have exacted from the people of Cuba."
Not the high price that communism has
exacted from the people of Cuba.
Travel writer
Dervla Murphy
also
supports
communist Cuba.
Her book on Cuba is called
"The Island That Dared"
-
as if being an oppressive, unelected dictatorship is something
exciting and unusual in this world.
T-shirt from here
sums up the real Cuban revolution.
Irish left support for other fascist and communist tyranny
I can remember being young and finding this kind of stuff
convincing.
In the 1980s I was pro-CND,
in other words,
pro-Soviet invasion of western Europe.
Luckily, CND failed
and the Soviet aggressor was stopped.
I was never stupid enough to be consciously pro-Soviet,
but I remember being
pro-Nicaragua, pro-Libya, pro-Palestine, pro-Cuba.
And of course anti-Reagan, anti-Thatcher.
I look back now with embarrassment.
Though I guess at least I've learnt something from it.
Was I That Stupid?
(and copies)
by Gerald Posner, March 4, 2003:
"Three decades later I have no pride in the memory of those protests. Rather, I wonder how it was possible to be so mistaken about real politics and world events."
Victor Davis Hanson
describes well why taking no action against fascists,
dictators and genocides
is always popular:
"The truth is that one can sound moral only through the advocacy of restraint,
never preemption. Appeasement wins applause for its ethical posturing and non-belligerency;
and even when the corpses later pile up it rarely earns the disgust it deserves
for getting thousands killed. In contrast, preemption is always equated with blood lust;
and even when it saves thousands, critics sigh that in retrospect there must have been a better way."
the
communist butchers of North Vietnam,
who
killed nearly 2 million innocent people outside of combat,
as a "heroic resistance".
Since 1995.
