One way of defining "the left" is as the
opponents of Western power and Western victory.
People who do not identify with countries based on Western democratic values
in their struggles against countries and groups based on Islamist, communist or other hostile values.
At best they are indifferent.
At worst they defend the enemy side.
Anti-War, My Foot by Christopher Hitchens, 26 Sept 2005, pointing out the vast number of people at
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."
is quoted in the
Fri 25 June 2004,
as supporting the
is quoted by the Irish Times
"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.
The "anti-war" group
PANA opposes the disarming of Hezbollah,
"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."
When the IAWM
planned to bring Hezbollah to Ireland in 2006,
"Anti-War" Ireland defended them.
Fintan Lane of Anti-War Ireland is quoted as saying:
"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."
The all-too-common sympathy for violence -
so long as it is violence by jihadis, not by democracies.
From his wealthy Dublin suburb
"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?"
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."
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.
Only against some wars, it seems.
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!
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
Acquitted saboteur, Australian
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.
Derry Anti-War Coalition
destroy offices of US defence company
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
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.
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?
The IRA in World War Two here are angry
that Ireland is not being neutral enough in the war on Nazism.
Just like the modern-day moral fools angry
that Ireland is not being neutral enough in the war on Islamism.
From the IRA's
War News, 2 Dec 1939.
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:
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
"We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S.,
who took to the streets in protest
against this war
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
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
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."
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.
who hate capitalism.
anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist "anarchists"
How could an anarchist
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,
"Anarchist" sounds cooler, I guess,
to the daft young people who fall for this stuff.
who, strangely, hate capitalism,
America and NATO.
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.
I love how he can't understand
"why such an obviously flawed system has become almost omnipresent".
And yet he is writing this on .. a computer!
Where does he think computers come from, if not from Western capitalist civilization?
In fact, he actually opposes civilization, not just western civilization:
"after over 5000 years of expanding basically the same system of urbanized living, it is time to realize that this model of living is unsustainable,
The only human societies that have managed to sustain themselves in-situ for very long periods of time are the most simple ones - such as those of the native North Americans, the Australian Aborigines, the Arctic peoples and African Bushmen. Most of these societies are, or are becoming westernized and abandoning their sustainable, subsistence lifestyles
Obviously it would be impossible for the whole world to instantly
return to a subsistence, agrarian lifestyle, however
... our planet will be killed if our reckless western civilization continues to expand unchecked."
Gates of Vienna
"you can bet that the bulldozer and the pistol will be the last technological artifacts to be given up".
Indymedia Ireland glorifies the jihadist killer of Jew civilian settlers.
"Sniper Killer of 11 Israeli Soldiers: Thaer Hamad's Father Video Interviewed", Indymedia Ireland,
23 Feb 2010.
Indymedia Ireland glorifies Palestinian sniper
Thaer Hamad (or Tha'ir Hamad), the killer of Israeli civilian settlers
at Wadi al-Haramiya in March 2002.
They approvingly embed
this video by Tommy Donnellan
who tells Hamad's family they should be proud of him.
"You should be proud that you have such a brave son, such a courageous fighter"
says Tommy Donnellan
to the father of the Jew-killer.
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 endless
direct attacks on Jew civilians,
including direct attacks on women and children)
claimed responsibility for the attack.
Yet the Indymedia article
that Hamad did not want to kill civilians.
Tommy Donnellan posted the video to YouTube with this write-up
openly supporting the Islamic terrorist sniper.
He repeats the absurd story that the sniper, who shot civilians dead, spared civilians.
Note also the praise for the kidnap of
Some kuffar really admire the jihad against the kuffar!
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.
Bob Geldof's sister
liked the non-democracy of Cuba so much that she lived there from 1985 to 1989.
Of course, unlike the Cuban people, she was free to leave at any time.
The Cubans: Voices of Change
by Lynn Geldof
Publishers Weekly review
says she "takes a distinctly sympathetic stance toward the Cuban state ... Most of the 19 people interviewed in Cuba announce support for the revolution ...
In the preface, Geldof likens Cuba's history and geopolitical situation to that of Ireland and says that Cuba's
are impressive compared with those of its Latin American neighbors."
Irish Times journalist Conor Pope defended Che Guevara
in the Irish Times,
9 Aug 2012.
T-shirt from here
sums up the real Cuban revolution.
After the mass-murdering dictator Castro died in Nov 2016,
was one of those engaging in "whataboutery".
Here he claims that
was worse than Castro's Cuba.
Let's compare them:
I was fascinated to discover that during WW2, when she was age 12, in Mar 1944,
her family gave refuge
for several weeks
when he was on the run, at the height of the Holocaust.
He was IRA Chief-of-Staff 1942-44, when they were allied with (and assisting) Nazi Germany.
He was on the run after killing a Southern Irish policeman.
Dervla Murphy's book
A place apart
recalling how she and her family sheltered the
In the 1978 edn the story is on pages 15 to 23.
In fairness, she discusses the moral dilemma of sheltering a cop-killer.
She does not discuss the moral dilemma of sheltering a Nazi collaborator.
The Irish Examiner, 9 Feb 2012,
by Dervla Murphy.
framed with an emotive anti-Israel picture that
may be fake:
"A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, Capt. Eytan Buchman, says that the man wasn't run over. 'After claiming to be injured, he was inspected by both an IDF medic and a Red Crescent medic, both who determined that he required no medical care whatsoever,' Capt. Buchman said."
See full size.
Why are young people attracted to these ideas?
I can remember being young and finding this kind of stuff
In the 1980s I was pro-CND.
In other words,
pro leaving Europe defenceless against Soviet plans.
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.
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.