Anti-war movement a caricature of itself

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence of Stalinist infiltration or staging?

[/ QUOTE ]

Several rallies were staged by the World Worker's Party, a major communist party in the United States Linky Check them out at Workers.org.

ANSWER also staged several major anti-war rallies. ANSWER of course is a front for the WWP.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you want to know why the antiwar movement has virtually no political power, despite polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?
...
Do you want to know why no major national Democratic office holder — not Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), not Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.), not Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), not Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), not Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.), not anyone — showed up at any of the antiwar events here in Washington this week?
...
Organized by the left-wing coalition United for Peace and Justice and the neo-communist group International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), the rally featured well-known speakers such as Sheehan, Jesse Jackson and the pro-Saddam British MP, George Galloway.
...
And besides the well-known names, there were representatives of far-left groups such as the Socialist Front of Puerto Rico, the Nicaragua Network, the Network in Solidarity With the People of the Philippines, the Women’s Anti-Imperialist League and the Global Women’s Strike .

link


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, these organizations are the most evil of statist organizations in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Most controversially of all, however, is the fact that WWP has defended Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein against attacks from both the right and the left. Notably, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, founder of the International Action Center, is in Iraq as of December 2005 acting as a consult to Hussein's defense team. Clark also spoke sympathetically of Milošević at his funeral in March 2006, telling the crowd, "History will prove that Slobodan Milošević was right."



[/ QUOTE ]

MoveOn.org co-sponsored several major rallies with ANSWER, but had this to say:

[ QUOTE ]
In its e-mail endorsing the antiwar rally held in Washington, D.C. over the weekend, Moveon.org took the unusual step of notifying its 3.5 million members that though it wanted people to attend the event, it had “disagreements on a range of issues” with the organizers. (referring to ANSWER)

[/ QUOTE ]

And no, HMK, there is nothing anti-violent about communist revolutions. I thought you said you read the forum over at infoshop.

Particularly, members of the Black Bloc (infoshop.org/blackblo.html



The San Fran rally:


Notice Che on his shirt:


Yeah, non-violence alright.



Another Link: Anti-War Crowd Backs Notorious Communist Dictators

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
the Women’s Anti-Imperialist League

[/ QUOTE ]

My, they sound evil. Imagine not only opposing imperialism, but being a woman to boot!

Radical leftist groups always jump on the back of (and often ruin) these kinds of things. The vast majority of people involved have no interest in them whatsoever.

[Michaelson]

Those groups are prominant because their members are activists and their perspectives predispose them to be anti-war and 'anti-establishment' by default. I'm sure there are plenty of neo-Nazis and Klansmen who are pro war. It doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether war is justified or not.

And as for:
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, non-violence alright.

[/ QUOTE ]
The poster was actually responding to the OP and the fasting protest it refered to, rather than poisoning the well by drawing somewhat tenuous links to undesirable groups.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Radical leftist groups always jump on the back of (and often ruin) these kinds of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this was exactly my point, and in addition to "jumping on the back" these Stalinist or Socialist groups will often stage the events themselves (I suspect as largely a recruitment effort)

[theBruiser500]

you're an idiot copernicus, if you keep electing stupid republicans you will get your just desserts eventually

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious. What method could someone take to oppose the war that you wouldn't belittle them for?

[/ QUOTE ]

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious. What method could someone take to oppose the war that you wouldn't belittle them for?

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Seriously though............would you really appreciate someone lighting themselves on fire in the street in front of your house for your children to see [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious. What method could someone take to oppose the war that you wouldn't belittle them for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll second that question.


q/q

[QuadsOverQuads]

Riddick, anyone even passingly familiar with ANY recent antiwar demonstrations can see the dishonesty of what you're posting.

Seriously: it's one thing to simply be aggressively misinformed (as you and your cohorts on the far right almost always are). But it's quite another thing to actually take the time to sift through a picture and then simply cherry-pick sections that you think you can use to paint a dishonest and unrepresentative picture of a group as a whole.

Men of character and integrity do not conduct themselves dishonestly when trying to present their evidence. You should take that lesson and reflect on it, deeply.

For starters:

"International ANSWER" represents, at the most, a very small fraction of the antiwar movement, and more than likely they are getting significant right-wing support to build their media profile in order to discredit the left as a whole. (That's how things work in the real world. And you're part of that effort, whether you realize it or not.)

Secondly:

The "Anarchist Blac Bloc" is almost entirely an internet and media fiction, stemming from hyperbolic scare-stories used to drum up public opposition to the 1999 WTO demonstrations. For all practical purposes, this "evil anarchist group" simply does not exist, let alone pose a "threat" to anyone. Yes, there are anarchist websites on the internet. But the "black-clad anarchists" nonsense you are regurgitating here is a whole different animal -- and if you'd done the "research" you want us to think you have, you would already know that.

As to the rest:

The other "evil communist infiltrators" you've mentioned are so ridiculously insignificant that only a right-wing idiot would consider them as anything but a bunch of hangers-on trying to gain publicity (specifically: they are trying to gain publicity by latching onto antiwar events and then hoping the right-wing press will give them free airtime because they can be used to scare their right-wing viewers and discredit the demonstrators -- gee, what else is new).

In sum:

It's like claiming that rock concerts are evil because you saw a guy in a "devil" shirt attending one. Of course, you probably believe that too -- and I'm sure you have a whole laundry list of cherry-picked images and religious websites you can refer me to which will "show me the light" about the "demonic infiltration of rock'n'roll". And I'm sure the same blue-haired grandmothers that eat up your Fox News BS will applaud you and send you checks for that, too. A whole nation of suckers and sheep, feeding off each other's paranoia and delusions.


q/q

[whiskeytown]

so a few leftists happen to be communists and that discredits the whole party in the eyes of the Right..

what does that say about all the racists and rednecks and anti-semitic bigots and defected Dixiecrats that vote Republican? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

anti-war protests will galvanize the base into helping take back the house in 2006 - hence the Right Wing's fear of them - but Republicans are scared of everything these days - the judicary, liberals, Black Christians, and anything that doesn't look like Ozzie and Harriet.

Then we gotta fix all they [censored] up during the 10 yr tenure - man - whadda mess for the next Democratic administration.

RB