Anti war protest in D.C.

[LomU]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050925/...e_us/war_rally

counter rally only manages 400 people, they had hoped for 20,000... support for this war is on it's last legs.

also:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html

team bush's appeal for funds only gets $600.. so much for pro war people putting their money where their mouth is.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
It pays to know who organizes your rallies. In this case, it is Stalinists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trotskyists.

"To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. 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. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh."

I thought this rally purported to be against a specific war ie the war in Iraq, rather than a statement against war in general? Is that no longer allowed?

" The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel."

Huh? Surely in the case of Iraq those against the war would argue that the toxic nature of the swamp was, er the occupation of Iraq.

"The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism."

How you can call this incisice and informative is beyond me. This is just creative babbling. Noone believes or says these things. And to equate veiling with stoning is ridiculous.

I agree that it's unfortunate the way such organisations try to hijack popular movements. They do the same here (the Socialist Worker Party, who are unbelievable wankers), trying to take over virtually any student protest and being heavily involved in the antiwar movement etc. But they're well organised and always ready to pounce, which is hard to avoid when a new cause comes out of the blue. I'm sure hte presence of their placards turn people off such movements. But at the same time, it's clear that most people going to such events are there for the cause and not to support ANSWER or the SWP or whoever.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, they are not only Trotskyists, but also are Stalinists, because among other things, they support the government of Kim Jong-il, which is the only true Stalinist regime left in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this rally purported to be against a specific war ie the war in Iraq, rather than a statement against war in general? Is that no longer allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's not the point Hitchens is trying to make, Nicky (although admittedly I just woke up and haven't reread the article today). He's saying that A.N.S.W.E.R. masquerades as an anti-war group when in reality it is pro-war, but on the other side. He's not saying this of the rally itself but rather of the A.N.S.W.E.R organizers of the rally.

[ QUOTE ]

" The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel."

Huh? Surely in the case of Iraq those against the war would argue that the toxic nature of the swamp was, er the occupation of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it isn't "always the same", yet that is a frequent and overplayed theme. I think Hitchens is using a bit of oversimplification or hyperbole here to make a point. It's also true that even if Israel did not exist, the fanatics would still be hating and attacking infidels--and so on even if Iraq never existed, either.

A significant portion of the problem is their inherent and totalitarian ideology--not the West's actions (though Western actions play a role in some ways too). A common refrain amongst Western liberals and the press today is that the problems wouldn't exist were it not for Western interference. That's true, or partially true, of some problems, but not of others. Nor does "Western interference" explain the many centuries of brutal conquest-driven expansionism, forced conversions, forced dhimmitude, slavery and pillage that took place widely against the vast non-Muslims regions (before the Crusades eventually drove back the conquest-driven, expansionist and imperialistic followers of Muhammad).

[ QUOTE ]

"The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism."

How you can call this incisice and informative is beyond me. This is just creative babbling. Noone believes or says these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

My take was that he was using a bit of hyperbole in a facetious manner to try to make a point.

[ QUOTE ]
And to equate veiling with stoning is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he so did (although I haven't gone back to reread the article yet). As I recall, he was not equating the two, but rather listing them both as tools of oppression of women...which indeed they are.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's unfortunate the way such organisations try to hijack popular movements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's a lot more than "unfortunate." I think it is also deliberately dishonest, despicable, and pernicious in effect.

[ QUOTE ]
They do the same here (the Socialist Worker Party, who are unbelievable wankers), trying to take over virtually any student protest and being heavily involved in the antiwar movement etc. But they're well organised and always ready to pounce, which is hard to avoid when a new cause comes out of the blue. I'm sure hte presence of their placards turn people off such movements. But at the same time, it's clear that most people going to such events are there for the cause and not to support ANSWER or the SWP or whoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with people going to these events, and I doubt Hitchens does either. However, the fair-minded conscientious people in attendance, or those who wish to run such rallies, should kick these A.N.S.W.E.R. Trotskyist/Stalinist opportunists out on their ears instead of letting them set up booths and actually run the show.

The opportunists not only have placards, they have booths, and more importantly, they put numerous speakers on stage who hijack the focus from anti-Iraq-war to a host of other pet causes and anti-US agendas. That's the point I'm trying to make: that the anti-war folk shouldn't cede so much control to them. I'm not panning anti-war rallies or attendees in general. I'm pointing out what A.N.S.W.E.R. is, and suggesting that people of good conscience who oppose the Iraq war ought not to let these goons take over and orchestrate events for them.

Well, that's my "before-coffee" take this merry morning. Cheers.

[Walter Pullis]

Most of the posts to this thread have been about how many people where at the anti-war rally. Even if it was 100K it was essentially a failure, as you can get 100K to any anti-administration rally. Also, even if 60+% are against the war in polls, this is a little ambiguous since most people do not want a complete withdrawl. Frankly there will not be a national revulsion against the war because there is no military draft.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Nissan Pavilion was called Wolf Trap, or am I thinking of a different outdoor concert venue?

I have been to Wolf Trap before, its in Gainesville (I believe).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nissan and Wolf Trap are two different places - Nissan is near Gainsville, Wolf Trap is in Tyson's Corner. Nissan is much larger.

[nicky g]

"Nor does "Western interference" explain the many centuries of brutal conquest-driven expansionism, forced conversions, forced dhimmitude, slavery and pillage that took place widely against the vast non-Muslims regions (before the Crusades eventually drove back the conquest-driven, expansionist and imperialistic followers of Muhammad). "

Oh for God sake why are you bringing this sort of garbage into the debate? Islamic empires like all empires have been guilty of aggression and terrible crimes but Islam historically has an exemplary record on forced conversions (there's nothing in it to compare for example to the scale of the choice of conversion or expulsion given by Spanish Christian rulers to hundreds of thousands of Spanish Muslims) and in the times of Muslim empire was infinitely more tolerant than its Christian counterparts. And your characterisation of the crusades is completely ridiculous. Those who fought the Muslim states in Spain could arguably be seen as trying to turn back Islamic expansionism; the religious lunatics who went to the Islamic heartlands to set up mini Crusader states could not. To laud those who murdered every Muslim and Jew in Jerusalem when they took the city while blabbering about Islamic imperialism is the height of absurdity. And has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

[MMMMMM]

I agree we're getting off-topic, Nicky--which is more my fault than yours--but I did have a reason for bringing it up. The reason is to counter the well-meant but erroneous notion, so oft expressed by Westerners, that in the absence of Western interference, all would be well, or that Islam would then be peaceful towards others. The ideology of Islam itself is inherently opposed to anything other than Islamic dominance. Equality simply will not do and is unacceptable to the very essence of Islamic ideology and Koranic instruction. And this view is not archaic but is part and parcel of Islamic thought both past and present. Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of CAIR in 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

As for the Crusades, here is a brief article you might find interesting:

(excerpt)"Virtually all Westerners have learned to apologize for the Crusades, but less noted is the fact that the Crusades have an Islamic counterpart for which no one is apologizing and of which few are even aware. I am working on a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which will out from Regnery Publishing in a few months. In it, I am clearing away propaganda and telling what really happened.

Islam originated in Arabia in the seventh century. At that time Egypt, Libya, and all of North Africa were Christian, and had been so for hundreds of years. So were Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor. But then Muhammad and his Muslim armies arose out of the desert, and -- as most modern textbooks would put it -- these lands became Muslim. But in fact the transition was cataclysmic. Muslims won these lands by conquest and, in obedience to the words of the Koran and the Prophet, put to the sword the infidels therein who refused to submit to the new Islamic regime. Those who remained alive lived in humiliating second-class status.

Clinton may be right that Muslims still seethe about the sack of Jerusalem, but he and they are strangely silent about similar behavior on the Muslim side. In those days, invading armies were considered to be entitled to sack cities that resisted them. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople, the jewel of Christendom, finally fell to an overwhelming Muslim force after weeks of resistance by a small band of valiant Greeks. According to the great historian of the Crusades Steven Runciman, the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit."

The first Crusade was called because Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. "The Crusade," noted the historian Bernard Lewis, "was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war -- to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage."(end excerpt)

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter).

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6959

[theweatherman]

despite your ignorant beliefs islam is NOT a religion of hatred. When territory was taken by islamic elements other religions wer persecuted, but not destroyed. Where as in "tolerent" places such as Catholic spain islam was viciously and systematically routed from society.

I didn't see the word hatred, nor was it implied, anywhere in M's post.

Stop being an ignorant troll.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
despite your ignorant beliefs islam is NOT a religion of hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was a religion of "hatred" and I don't believe that it is. Rather,it is a religion of complete submission to Allah, and of forcing other people to submit to Islamic rule as well. That is the essence or raison d^etre of Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
When territory was taken by islamic elements other religions wer persecuted, but not destroyed. Where as in "tolerent" places such as Catholic spain islam was viciously and systematically routed from society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam had expanded its territory by FORCE, even into Spain...and was eventually forcibly routed.

I'm not asserting that Muslims were always more barbaric than Catholics or Christians, because that would not be a true statement.

My point is that the ideological underpinnings of Islamic philosophy itself are inherently incompatible with assuming an equal political status alongside other religions (or alongside lack of religion). Therefore, in the absence of serious reform, Islam has, and always will, try to forcibly dominate other religions and peoples, because THAT IS BUILT INTO ITS VERY CORE PHILOSOPHY, TEXTS, AND TEACHINGS. That's precisely what the Koran tells Muslims to do, and it's what Mohammad and his followers have fought for, for many centuries: the goal is a world RULED by Islam. It's also what the Greater Jihadists of today are aiming for (after they first re-establish the caliphate), and the most basic reason that they are fighting.