Anti-war movement a caricature of itself

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. ANSWER organizes many anti-war rallies yet you characterize them as a very small fraction of the anti-war movement. Perhaps it is you who are being disingenuous for although true they represent a small fraction of those who oppose the war, they seem to be quite representative of those who fervently oppose the war, after all they are ORGANIZING the rallies Quads.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Lots of groups "organize" and "sponsor" and "cosponsor". The left is an alphabet soup of groups that do this, and has been for decades.

Now, who actually REPRESENTS the majority of people against the war? If you think ANSWER does, you're f'in nuts. Most people against the war are just average Americans who feel completely powerless in the face of it all and who have no clue how to voice their opinions in any way that will make a meaningful difference.

The role of the screaming pro-war minority is simply to make sure that things stay that way -- no matter how many lies they have to tell to keep us there.


q/q

[QuadsOverQuads]

One additional thing that Riddick failed to mention, too:

If you ever actually TALK to the few idiots who show up at "leftist" rallies waving communist flags and the like, you'll figure out REALLY fast that they're not communists at all. They're usually young Republicans and/or Libertarian Party members who are trying to get those BS flags and banners into news photos of the rally so that they can later accuse their opponents of harboring those same sentiments. This is common knowledge at any progressive/left rally I've ever been to. But the right-wing propaganda machine laps it up, just as intended. A few of them don't really know the difference, but the fact is that most of them -- like Riddick -- simply don't care. They just want a scary image to attack somebody with, and they're too intellectually lazy to read the fine print or (God forbid) get on the ground to understand what's really going on.

As I said before, this is the way things work in the real world. People tell lies to get those lies on camera. People monkeywrench their opponents' events. People lie, people cheat, people take false credit, people engage in publicity stunts, people wait for "somebody else" to get the permit, people wait for "somebody else" to paint them a sign.

And most people are simply stuck in the middle of this mess, just wanting their kids to come home in one piece, and hoping to God that somehow their voices will be heard in an environment where everyone is talking from a script and nobody's listening to a word they say.

q/q

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. ANSWER organizes many anti-war rallies yet you characterize them as a very small fraction of the anti-war movement. Perhaps it is you who are being disingenuous for although true they represent a small fraction of those who oppose the war, they seem to be quite representative of those who fervently oppose the war, after all they are ORGANIZING the rallies Quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Socialist Workers Party is a prominent organiser of anti-war demos in the UK. The war is massively unpopular here and the main anti-war demo was one of the biggest demonstrations in living memory in the UK. And yet, the SWP remains a completely insignificant party in terms of popularity in the UK, limited almost entirely to students. It isn't at all representative of the anti-war movement. Its interests simply coincide with the anti-war movement on that issue and it already has the organisational structures in place to organise protests.

[Riddick]

I think its fairly obvious that Q/Q is being disingenuous here, as several posters have already pointed out, but to further clarify, I never said that there was anything inherently wrong with anti-war rallies or most of the people attending them. I simply stated that they were often well-infiltrated or outright staged by the seriously [censored] up stalinist groups. Andyfox then asked for evidence of this, and I posted quite crystal clear evidence. I could care less about either "side" of this war issue, it really doesn't concern me in the least bit, so I'm stating what I know to be facts, and fairly objectively. (Yes, its objective to refer to Stalinist groups as evil)

But don't take my word for it, if you believe Q/Q that I'm being dishonest here. Read this Democratic Underground thread, entitled THE ANSWER PROBLEM, located here. Surely these posters (OP and many replies) are in the know.

And I quote:

[ QUOTE ]
I went to the local vigil last night and was handed a flyer for the Sept 24th protest. I was planning on going to the DC protest, actually had a hotel reserved but after receiving this flyer, I decided to cancel my trip. WHY?

On this flyer from A.N.S.W.E.R., the top of it read "STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ." You betcha. But then it says:

- Support Palestinian people right of return
- End Colonial Occupation: Iraq, Palestine, Haiti
- US out of the Philippines
- US out of Puerto Rico
etc.

This is looking like a repeat of the Oct 25, 2003 march in San Francisco. I was there at the font of the march and had volunteered to carry an A.N.S.W.E.R. banner. Imagine my surprise when, expecting to carry something about bringing our troops home, I was instead handed a big green "Free Palestine" banner. Huh?

I think A.N.S.W.E.R. needs to learn something about setting priorities and focusing efforts on one thing at a time. While I am certainly sympathetic to many of their other causes, in order to be effective we need to focus our energy on one thing at at time. We are marching in DC against the war in Iraq. Not against the Palestinian occupation. Not about Haiti. Puerto Rico? With all these mixed messages, we on the left wind up looking like disorganized clowns to the media, and they slant their reporting to reflect this perception. We need middle America to hear our voice ABOUT THIS ONE CAUSE. With all the other crap being protested we are going to wind up looking like we do not have our bolts screwed in right.

We are at a turning point in the country thanks to Cindy Sheehan. We need to do this right. We can not afford to make any mistakes here.

When you see the freepers protesting, misguided as they are they at least do it right. They don't dilute their message by trying to heap on every right wing grievance at once. They are there for one cause and one cause only, and they stick to their Rovian talking points. Simple-minded and evil, but effective.

Please keep these protests focused on the war in Iraq. Once we win this, then we can "move on" to the next issue. Success breeds success.

I am calling A.N.S.W.E.R. today to voice my concerns and I hope more of you will join me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here is an Article urging newly recruited ANSWER members to be 'militant' in infiltrating their campus and local peace rallies.

[Riddick]

Oh btw

Any evidence supporting either of your claims? Or are you lying?

[ QUOTE ]
"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

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
They're usually young Republicans and/or Libertarian Party members who are trying to get those BS flags and banners into news photos of the rally so that they can later accuse their opponents of harboring those same sentiments.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
And most people are simply stuck in the middle of this mess, just wanting their kids to come home in one piece

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this I actually do find very disingenuous. Are you implying that most parents of adult men and women who voluntarily joined the military during wartime are necessarily anti-war? Or are you implying that most of the protesters at large peace rallies are parents of troops overseas?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Read this Democratic Underground thread, entitled THE ANSWER PROBLEM, located here. Surely these posters (OP and many replies) are in the know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would also seem to indicate that FreeRepublic board members are clearly in the know on who pulls the strings on the right. I'm genuinely confused anyway; what you're citing now would suggest that indeed, most rank and file attendees of the anti-war events have little to no interest in ANSWER's agenda.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read this Democratic Underground thread, entitled THE ANSWER PROBLEM, located here. Surely these posters (OP and many replies) are in the know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would also seem to indicate that FreeRepublic board members are clearly in the know on who pulls the strings on the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly I meant "in the know" in response to Q/Q's accusation:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

meaning clearly this poster and other DU posters responding have at least a passing familiarity with recent antiwar demonstrations, yet they clearly agree with me, rendering Q/Q's accusation a bold faced lie.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm genuinely confused anyway; what you're citing now would suggest that indeed, most rank and file attendees of the anti-war events have little to no interest in ANSWER's agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would be speculation. I certainly don't think most of the attendees give a damn about these Stalinist causes, but that was never my claim. I simply said that these rallies were well-infiltrated or outright staged by Stalinist/Socialist and very dangerous groups, very far from anti-violent, countering HMK's contention that any anti-violence protest was OK. Period.