Anti-war crowd embraces International ANSWER!, traitorous Stalinists that they are

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Once again we have the anti-war movement peppered with people from A.N.S.W.E.R., and the mainstream media ignores that organization's traitorous rhetoric, merely calling it "a hard-left anti-war coalition" AlterNet.org or ignoring its roots entirely SF Examiner.

Let's set the record straight about Act Now to Stop War and End Racism! (exclamation point is not mine) Here is an interesting search that someone did on the group. The group has known links to the Workers World Party, which is known to support North Korea, Cuba, and China (the government -- including the Tiananmen Square massacre), (online encyclopedia description I found) and calls itself a Marxist-Leninist group. Apparently the worldwide failure of Marxist-Leninism eluded their attention.

ANSWER states quite openly that:
The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.
(from ANSWER's "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq" PDF document here). Treason is defined as, "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." ANSWER states that the anti-war movement must support Iraqi resistance. Support is a synonym for aid. Seems like the definition fits.

Here's some more sickly amusing information from their website. They have a list of US military interventions from 1890 to 1999. Here are two descriptions that I found particularly telling:

GERMANY, 1948/ Nuclear threat/ Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. (This is rich -- humanitarian airlift effort required after illegal blockade by Soviet forces turns into "nuclear threat"!)

KOREA, 1951-53(-?)/ U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases. (Forget to mention that North Korea INVADED, oops)

But wait, there's more! ANSWER thinks Sudan is a happy little country that shouldn't be the subject of sanctions. The attack on Afghanistan is cited as bringing destruction and hardship to the people of Afghanistan, curiously ANSWER fails to mention the Taliban and the draconian religious rules in place from that regime. They also mention the extremely poor living conditions and life expectancy in Afghanistan but fail to blame the Taliban regime. Palestinian suicide bombers, killing innocent civilians, are never referenced as such but are generally referred to as "defend[ing] themselves" against Israeli aggression. All of this in one document: International Answer Center fact sheet.

This is the anti-war movement? Keep this information in mind the next time you see ANSWER referenced with an anti-war protest such as those that occurred on 20 March.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Are you questioning those who are against the Dubs excellent adventure in Iraq's patriotism? Are those who are willing to overlook the lies that the Dub told to get the American Public to support that excellent adventure the only ones who are patriotic according to you?
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Once again we have the anti-war movement peppered with people from A.N.S.W.E.R., and the mainstream media ignores that organization's traitorous rhetoric, merely calling it "a hard-left anti-war coalition" AlterNet.org or ignoring its roots entirely SF Examiner.
A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the story here, the protests, and the amount of people that showed up were. Sure A.N.S.W.E.R. is a despicable organization but to paint to paint an entire group because of some in their number is irresponsible. I would also wager most of the people attending the rallies don't know or don't care about A.N.S.W.E.R. all they cared about is being heard.

This is the anti-war movement? Keep this information in mind the next time you see ANSWER referenced with an anti-war protest such as those that occurred on 20 March.
No it's not. There are many people against this war and most wars in general that have nothing to do with A.N.S.W.E.R. and it's shortsighted to dismiss them like you have.

You seem to have a problem with the Anti-War movement, why is that?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Once again we have the anti-war movement peppered with people from A.N.S.W.E.R., and the mainstream media ignores that organization's traitorous rhetoric, merely calling it "a hard-left anti-war coalition" AlterNet.org or ignoring its roots entirely SF Examiner.
A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the story here, the protests, and the amount of people that showed up were. Sure A.N.S.W.E.R. is a despicable organization but to paint to paint an entire group because of some in their number is irresponsible. I would also wager most of the people attending the rallies don't know or don't care about A.N.S.W.E.R. all they cared about is being heard.

This is the anti-war movement? Keep this information in mind the next time you see ANSWER referenced with an anti-war protest such as those that occurred on 20 March.
No it's not. There are many people against this war and most wars in general that have nothing to do with A.N.S.W.E.R. and it's shortsighted to dismiss them like you have.

You seem to have a problem with the Anti-War movement, why is that?

Great points there.



 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I have links to Communism. (My grandfather was a Communist.) So, am I a "traitorous Stalinist"?

Nice, catchy title though. You'll bag a few of us. :)

-Robert
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,914
6,792
126
We do want to be a bit cautious that North Korea doesn't take over the world though. A nation of grass eaters command a powerful ideal for propagandizing the world. People everywhere love to eat grass.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Moonbeam:

Yeah, so many sheep, so much grass, the possibilities are terrifying. :)

-Robert
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
I wonder what is worse:

#1) To be a traitor (as defined by supporters or conspiritors of #2), or
#2) To be a corrupt politician involved in criminal actions, as exemplyfied by GWB, and the entire Bush administration.

That is the question

A recent list of other corrupt criminal politicians in my lifetime. We should all be very proud.

C= corrupt; Cr= criminal

GWB -CCr / Should be in jail
B Clinton -CCr / Should be in jail
GHWB -CCr / Should be in jail
J Carter -C
R Reagan -CCr / Should be in jail
G Ford -CCr / Should be in jail
Nixon -CCr / Should have been in jail
LBJ -CCr / Should have been in jail
JFK -CCr / Should have been in jail
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,834
515
126
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Once again we have the anti-war movement peppered with people from A.N.S.W.E.R., and the mainstream media ignores that organization's traitorous rhetoric, merely calling it "a hard-left anti-war coalition" AlterNet.org or ignoring its roots entirely SF Examiner.
A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the story here, the protests, and the amount of people that showed up were. Sure A.N.S.W.E.R. is a despicable organization but to paint to paint an entire group because of some in their number is irresponsible. I would also wager most of the people attending the rallies don't know or don't care about A.N.S.W.E.R. all they cared about is being heard.

This is the anti-war movement? Keep this information in mind the next time you see ANSWER referenced with an anti-war protest such as those that occurred on 20 March.
No it's not. There are many people against this war and most wars in general that have nothing to do with A.N.S.W.E.R. and it's shortsighted to dismiss them like you have.

You seem to have a problem with the Anti-War movement, why is that?


If there were a rally against same sex marriage and the KKK organized it would it still be irrelevant?
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,765
615
126
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Once again we have the anti-war movement peppered with people from A.N.S.W.E.R., and the mainstream media ignores that organization's traitorous rhetoric, merely calling it "a hard-left anti-war coalition" AlterNet.org or ignoring its roots entirely SF Examiner.
A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't the story here, the protests, and the amount of people that showed up were. Sure A.N.S.W.E.R. is a despicable organization but to paint to paint an entire group because of some in their number is irresponsible. I would also wager most of the people attending the rallies don't know or don't care about A.N.S.W.E.R. all they cared about is being heard.

This is the anti-war movement? Keep this information in mind the next time you see ANSWER referenced with an anti-war protest such as those that occurred on 20 March.
No it's not. There are many people against this war and most wars in general that have nothing to do with A.N.S.W.E.R. and it's shortsighted to dismiss them like you have.

You seem to have a problem with the Anti-War movement, why is that?


If there were a rally against same sex marriage and the KKK organized it would it still be irrelevant?

The KKK is allowed to hold meetings still, I'm pretty sure it has to do with their constitutional right to peaceful assembly or something like that. I may not agree with the KKK (an understandment) but I will not deny them their right.

If they want to assemble an antiwar rally thats fine with me, last time I checked in America we were allowed to have our own opinions. I think its in that constitution or something. You might have heard of it.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Blah, blah, blah, what a lame attempt to discredit the anti-war movement. Ignoring completely the fact that 99% of protestors are only out there to protest the Iraq war not convert to communism or whatever you're accusing these orgs of today...
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
I hate to think McCarthyism still exists today in one form or another, but then threads like this prove it.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Blah, blah, blah, what a lame attempt to discredit the anti-war movement. Ignoring completely the fact that 99% of protestors are only out there to protest the Iraq war not convert to communism or whatever you're accusing these orgs of today...

You got that 99% from where? What source is that exactly? I'd personally say the people that are generally at the protest are just unstable indiviuals because their son or daughter died. You think protesting is going to bring them back? I'd say 99.9% of all protesters are idiots.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Blah, blah, blah, what a lame attempt to discredit the anti-war movement. Ignoring completely the fact that 99% of protestors are only out there to protest the Iraq war not convert to communism or whatever you're accusing these orgs of today...

You got that 99% from where? What source is that exactly? I'd personally say the people that are generally at the protest are just unstable indiviuals because their son or daughter died. You think protesting is going to bring them back? I'd say 99.9% of all protesters are idiots.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I hate to think McCarthyism still exists today in one form or another, but then threads like this prove it.

Hey look a liberal trotting out so-called "McCarthyism"! Suprise suprise!
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: fjord
I wonder what is worse:

#1) To be a traitor (as defined by supporters or conspiritors of #2), or
#2) To be a corrupt politician involved in criminal actions, as exemplyfied by GWB, and the entire Bush administration.

That is the question

A recent list of other corrupt criminal politicians in my lifetime. We should all be very proud.

C= corrupt; Cr= criminal

GWB -CCr / Should be in jail
B Clinton -CCr / Should be in jail
GHWB -CCr / Should be in jail
J Carter -C
R Reagan -CCr / Should be in jail
G Ford -CCr / Should be in jail
Nixon -CCr / Should have been in jail
LBJ -CCr / Should have been in jail
JFK -CCr / Should have been in jail

I would classify Carter as a traitor based on his handling (is that the right word??) of the Iran hostage crisis as well.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Blah, blah, blah, what a lame attempt to discredit the anti-war movement. Ignoring completely the fact that 99% of protestors are only out there to protest the Iraq war not convert to communism or whatever you're accusing these orgs of today...

You got that 99% from where? What source is that exactly? I'd personally say the people that are generally at the protest are just unstable indiviuals because their son or daughter died. You think protesting is going to bring them back? I'd say 99.9% of all protesters are idiots.

Yes, people protesting because their kid died in a war that has dubious justification makes them idiots. Of course it makes those who makes those kind of statements about them infinitely worse.

You're like 15, right?

Have a kid?

Clue: If your kid died, you would not be dismissing it lightly, unless you are an idiot of course. Or a Republican maybe.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
would also wager most of the people attending the rallies don't know or don't care about A.N.S.W.E.R. all they cared about is being heard.

So, the fact that the protests were organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. means nothing? Participation in an activity sanctioned by a group to me implies support for that group. "I just really believed in governing Germany. I wasn't really a Nazi."

You seem to have a problem with the Anti-War movement, why is that?

Because I believe the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq plus the ongoing Global War on Terror are necessary and correct. Those that protest AND SUPPORT THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TRAITORS TO THIS COUNTRY. A.N.S.W.E.R. falls in that category, and I saw nothing in the news regarding participants distancing themselves from that group. News reports seemed to be reporting a united front, and that united front therefore apparently supports the anti-Coalition forces in Iraq currently killing American soldiers, international workers, and Iraqi police and civilians.

By the way, you're the only person so far who has denounced A.N.S.W.E.R., which leads me to believe that the others do not.

Great points there.

Thanks for all the independent thought that went into that contribution.

So, am I a "traitorous Stalinist"?

Only if you're a member of the World Workers' Party or a similar group. Are you?

I hate to think McCarthyism still exists today in one form or another, but then threads like this prove it.

Cute. Care to actually make a poignant comment?
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
By the way, you're the only person so far who has denounced A.N.S.W.E.R., which leads me to believe that the others do not.

Quickly, guys, denounce it. John Ashcroft is here and he's ready to send people to Gauntanamo for un-American activities.

Zephyr
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
I was going to post a thread to see if anyone still thought that anti-Iraqi war protesters were communist traitors. Thanks for saving me the effect.

 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: AndrewRSo, the fact that the protests were organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. means nothing? Participation in an activity sanctioned by a group to me implies support for that group. "I just really believed in governing Germany. I wasn't really a Nazi."
To me all it implies is ignorance, which over the past few years as I've matured and gotten more interested in politics, I've become numb to. I would never go to anything sponsored by this group because I think they're despicable, but let's face it most people don't read the fine print.

Because I believe the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq plus the ongoing Global War on Terror are necessary and correct. Those that protest AND SUPPORT THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TRAITORS TO THIS COUNTRY.
Support of a war is very rarely a right or wrong answer. I can only think of 3 that are black and white, Revolutionary, WW2, and Afghanistan. Every other one up to and including Iraq are somewhere in the middle. Even then if someone were to protest our involvement, it is absolutely ludicrous to say they're supporting our enemies and are traitors. All it means is, they think there is another way.

A.N.S.W.E.R. falls in that category, and I saw nothing in the news regarding participants distancing themselves from that group.
I would wager that most of the participants have no idea who or what A.N.S.W.E.R. is. That just makes them ignorant.

News reports seemed to be reporting a united front, and that united front therefore apparently supports the anti-Coalition forces in Iraq currently killing American soldiers, international workers, and Iraqi police and civilians.
Look there are two stories here. The first is the actual protest themselves. The second story, and in my opinion less important one, is about A.N.S.W.E.R. Failing to report on the second story is not tacit approval of A.N.S.W.E.R.

By the way, you're the only person so far who has denounced A.N.S.W.E.R., which leads me to believe that the others do not.
You're going to have to ask them, but I sincerely doubt that it's the case.