I love that the going defense for this action is "we do it all the time", thats awesome. Its only a travesty if you do it once, do it with regularity and everything is A-OK. I am SO glad that we are paying these people to make us fit the exact image that the enemy paints of us.
Random Iraqi Civilians killed by Contractors?
- Thread starter lysander
- Start date
- Status
They "do it all the time" because they have to. The insurgents often make dry runs on convoys to see how close the can get and what the response will be....which varies by company and situation. If you know you can get within say 20 yards before they fire warning shots, then you just need a big enough explosive to take a vehicle out from there. While mistakes happen, the majority of those are probably either VBIED attempts or probes. That's why they keep accellerating even though there is a mean man pointing/firing warning shots with a MG at them.
Kinda hard to understand and "armchair commando" a situation like this...especially from a short, out of context video clip like that when you haven't been there and have no personal experience (in these matters) to relate it to.
The only way to safely run the roads there without using tail gunners and keeping traffic away is to try to blend in. Of course in another thread the critics accused the SAS guys who did this as "disguising themselves" and said the purpose must have been to blow up civilian targets to start a civil war.
Basically, the critcs will spin any situation to make the coalition troops or contractors look bad, smug in their ignorance and counting on the ignorance of others that they will believe it.
P.S. I use the term "ignorance" to mean "Not having experience/knowledge of the subject at hand" as opposed to in a general or personal way.
Kinda hard to understand and "armchair commando" a situation like this...especially from a short, out of context video clip like that when you haven't been there and have no personal experience (in these matters) to relate it to.
The only way to safely run the roads there without using tail gunners and keeping traffic away is to try to blend in. Of course in another thread the critics accused the SAS guys who did this as "disguising themselves" and said the purpose must have been to blow up civilian targets to start a civil war.
Basically, the critcs will spin any situation to make the coalition troops or contractors look bad, smug in their ignorance and counting on the ignorance of others that they will believe it.
P.S. I use the term "ignorance" to mean "Not having experience/knowledge of the subject at hand" as opposed to in a general or personal way.
The Pentagon was doing it secretly.
1. Turner doesn't own CNN anymore, and hasn't in a LONG time. CNN is just one more stenographer to power. They should change their name to PNN (Pentagon News Network).
2. Were those four Blackwater mercs guarding a food convoy on that fateful day in May 2004? I've seen nothing in any of the news reports of the incident to suggest that they were "guarding food" that day. For all we know, they were just driving around and smoking hadjis at random.
It's not that I take joy in the attack; I just don't care about mercs one way or the other. US soldiers over there are at least motivated by patriotism and a sense of duty - even if I disagree with their mission - and ostensibly accountable under US Military Code.
If some unimaginably powerful Arab army invaded the US and brought in Arab mercs to drive around and shoot us locals who didn't move fast enough or understand their commands in Arabic, what do you suppose we would do?
Wrong again. I SPECIFICALLY flipped off only the oath-breakers.
At least 80% of the Iraqis want us out of their country. US occupation is fundamentally illegitimate regardless of whether the US military is deploying chemical weapons or "only" incendiaries.
The US military should leave Iraq ASAP. How? By trucks and planes, exactly as they got in.
We've lost over 2000 soldiers. Have you ever wondered what 2000 looks like?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
America has cars. America has suicides. America has bombs. America has car bombs. Is it really a stretch to imagine that there might be suicide car bombers in America? I think not.
So when some French company hires some European gunslingers, and they fire on any American vehicle which approaches their convoy, which is stopped in the middle of a highway in Kansas, don't sweat it. There is a threat, and there is the reaction to it.
The threat is the possibility that a car coming towards you has hostile intent. The reaction is to set up an exclusion zone and destroy any vehicle which violates it.
Legal? Pfft, who cares, there are terrorists out there so laws don't matter. Proportional or apropriate? Pfft, if laws don't matter you think anything else does?
And I think we all know that about 1/3 of the drivers would get shot dead tomorrow, because stupid drivers really are that commonplace.
So when some French company hires some European gunslingers, and they fire on any American vehicle which approaches their convoy, which is stopped in the middle of a highway in Kansas, don't sweat it. There is a threat, and there is the reaction to it.
The threat is the possibility that a car coming towards you has hostile intent. The reaction is to set up an exclusion zone and destroy any vehicle which violates it.
Legal? Pfft, who cares, there are terrorists out there so laws don't matter. Proportional or apropriate? Pfft, if laws don't matter you think anything else does?
And I think we all know that about 1/3 of the drivers would get shot dead tomorrow, because stupid drivers really are that commonplace.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Joejojoba111 said:
Your example is rather preposterous, but when there are 150 ambushes on the road between Kansas City and the airport, I won't blame the Frenchmen.
Anyway, I wanna get one of those "Stay back 100 meters or you will be shot" signs for my vehicle during the evening commute.
Just a shame that those terrorists are able to operate under the American flag in a nation that we are tying to convince that we are the good guys. Or were you talking about some other kind of terrorist randomly killing civilians in Iraq? The lines really shouldnt be so indistinct between the actions of "the good guys" and "the bad guys".
That would be every war that was conducted without a declaration of war by Congress, including "secret" wars run by the CIA and the small wars that they didn't teach you about in school.
You think it's cool that the president can just order the military into war? You think it's OK that our spineless Congress can delegate its constitutional authority to declare war to the president? If the answer is yes, then you are part of the problem.
You know what else? I don't support the troops in Iraq. Now I don't wish them any harm, and were it up to me they would all be back home in one piece with their families. But I don't send them letters and care packages, I don't pray for them or send them positive energy, I don't wear little yellow ribbons for them or stickers on the back of my truck. You want to be a pawn of the state? You want to be a stormtrooper for the American Empire?
Bird.
Don't like it? Go argue with a former Marine named Thunder over here.
carebear
Member
I didn't spend a lot of time arguing with Corporals who wanted to run their mouths off during my time in the Corps and I don't intend to start now. More or less, I told 'em to shut up and get back to work. If they "declined" I took them to the treeline.
An E-4 is qualified to pontificate on nothing involving more than 3 other Marines. He can take his "former Marine" credentials and go pound sand.
Matthew Carberry
0311/0321/8652
Former Sergeant of Marines (Hqtrs and Rcn Platoon Sgt., occasional acting Company Gunny)
Still uncertain when the ironclad (hell, even aluminumclad) proof that that video actually shows "random killing of civilians" is showing up.
Even more uncertain why we are assuming (lacking any evidence) that when and if such ironclad proof shows up the then proven criminals won't be charged and dealt with appropriately.
An E-4 is qualified to pontificate on nothing involving more than 3 other Marines. He can take his "former Marine" credentials and go pound sand.
Matthew Carberry
0311/0321/8652
Former Sergeant of Marines (Hqtrs and Rcn Platoon Sgt., occasional acting Company Gunny)
Still uncertain when the ironclad (hell, even aluminumclad) proof that that video actually shows "random killing of civilians" is showing up.
Even more uncertain why we are assuming (lacking any evidence) that when and if such ironclad proof shows up the then proven criminals won't be charged and dealt with appropriately.
Waitone
Member
Don't like the idea of the president ordering troops into battle? Fine, take it up with congress. Get them to either re-write or repeal the War Powers Act. Know what? Both parties love the War Powers Act. It allows to happen what just happened. A declaration of war is far too absolute for your gutless congress. WPA allows the US to enter into a war while simultaneously permitting or both parties to change their mind. The president comes off looking strong for America's interests (which is a requirement for being elected president). It allows the majority party to puff and preen in front of the voters. It allows the opposition party to look good in supporting a war effort and it allows it the chance to change its mind when additional information becomes available. It give the opposition party the chance to stake out positions which can be bragged about regardless of the war's outcome. By forcing everyone to go on the record with a declaration of war all the wiggle room and future qualifications evaporate. In short, congress would have to firmly commit to a course of action and see it through. . . . . just like PFC Numbnuts at the pointy end of the spear.
Outrage can be a good thang as we say here in the south. Misplace outrage is pathetic.
Outrage can be a good thang as we say here in the south. Misplace outrage is pathetic.
Old Dog
Member
Javafiend is certainly well qualified to pass judgement on those of us in the military; after all, he obviously pays rapt attention to the pathetic whinings of alleged former servicemembers (self-proclaimed) on internet forums with, gee whiz, an anti-war slant ...
Cool? There's nothing "cool" about war, Javafiend, and I'd submit no one here believes that there is ... particularly those of us who've actually been to war. That aside from the fact that the President cannot "just order the military into war."
Fait accompli, Javafiend ... Please go back and re-read the War Powers Resolution of 1973 ... Anyway, the fact that Congress continues to hold hearings on the situation in Iraq, that there is ongoing debate in Congress, that opposition to the war is being heard, loudly and clearly, indicates the system is working.
Sounds as though someone is pining to be back in the '60s again ...
Listen up good, buddy: we call ourselves Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen or Coast Guardsmen ...
javafiend said:
Oh BS...you flipped off everyone who has fought in a non-declaired war...IE pretty much every vet since WWII and called them Oath-breakers (Have you ever sworn an oath to the Constitution? No? Then, once again you've no clue.). Conveniently, the thread was deleated so once again you can deny your own words.
I've seen, touched, smelled the dead? You? Any real life experience or do you get all of your life through google?
Hows the comic book business?
The Left’s Secret Pact: Subverting the War on Terror
November 30th, 2005
The War on Terror has brought on many complex problems and challenges. Perhaps none is more critical than the conduct of the political Left which is apparently set on sabotaging our efforts. Unable to come up with a logical explanation, political observers either throw up their hands in bewilderment or ascribe the Left’s posture to some irrational nihilistic impulse. But such conclusions are neither satisfactory nor correct.
The Left’s sabotage of this war is a deliberate attempt to give relief to the other side. This is because their corresponding views on capitalism and the West make Islamic radicals and the Left natural allies. The Left seeks to weaken us from within in order to help those whose shared worldview binds them in a common pact. Once we understand the nature of this stealth partnership, the reasons behind the Left’s often seemingly inexplicable actions will become alarmingly apparent.
But to do so, we must start at the beginning.
For reasons we need not go into here, some people in capitalism develop an aversion toward it. Needless to say, it can be seen and felt in many places – at anti-establishment rallies, globalization protests, in the ranks of our cultural and intellectual elites, among radical activists, and the movies of Michael Moore to mention just a few – where capitalism is spoken of as evil, exploitative, alienating, dehumanizing and such.
This hatred gives rise to the urge to strike out. On the crudest level, it is expressed as violence against capitalism’s symbols and institutions such as financial centers and corporations. The efforts to institutionalize capitalism-adverse policies are a more sophisticated manifestation of this impulse. Some of the more obvious ones are regulatory restrictions on the free market, the expansion of the state and the shackling of the private sector. It goes without saying that the possessors of this anti-capitalist outlook invariably congregate on the political Left.
The Left’s dislike of capitalism naturally extends to the whole of Western civilization as the two are indelibly and inextricably tied. Capitalism was, of course, born in the West and in time came to constitute its socio-economic foundation. Besides being its cradle, the West has also been capitalism’s leading practitioner and long-term champion.
In the Left’s worldview, then, the two great villains on this earth are capitalism and the West. As such, they need to be brought down and taken out of existence, which is precisely what the western Left has been trying to accomplish for the past one hundred years or so.
Its first great hope was the Soviet Union; naturally so, since the Soviet worldview closely coincided with its own. To begin with, the Soviets were virulently anti-capitalistic. Castigating capitalism as an unjust and exploitative system that had corrupted the whole of the Western world, they insisted that it was to be swept away as a matter of historical law. This, of course, was music to the Left’s ears.
Most importantly, the Soviets possessed the means and willingness to help those historical laws along. Belligerent and heavily-armed, they were openly preparing for that decisive confrontation that would push the West with its bourgeois culture into the abyss of the past. The result was the Cold war, an epic clash between two diametrically opposed socio-economic orders – Western democratic liberalism and communist totalitarianism.
Never in doubt where they stood, the Left tried to tip the scales in the Soviets’ favor by weakening the West from within. Their strategy was twofold: To dull the West’s fighting spirit and to undercut its military power. To affect the former, they professed that the Cold War was un-winnable, as it would only lead to mankind’s annihilation. It was therefore better not to fight than to be destroyed – hence the well-known slogan ‘better red than dead.’ They even hinted that to be taken over would not have been so undesirable, as the Soviet love for the common man made their system more humane than ours, based as it is on greed and selfishness.
To render us ineffective militarily, they strenuously opposed any effort to increase our strength or preparedness. Claiming it would only provoke the other side to an all-out nuclear confrontation, they eagerly advocated military cuts in order to demonstrate good will. Some went so far as to propose unilateral disarmament. This was, of course, precisely what the ever-aggressive Soviets were hoping for.
Sensing the Soviets were being outplayed, the Left became outright hysterical when Ronald Reagan strategically placed nuclear warheads in several European countries. They organized a wave of peace protests where they sought to whip up popular hysteria by predicting an imminent nuclear Armageddon. Claiming that the move was a needless provocation, they urged the U.S. to withdraw. America, however, stood its ground and stared down both the threats of the Soviet government and the demands of the peaceniks. As the architect of this stratagem and the West’s leader in the struggle against communism, Ronald Reagan was the Left’s most hated man. The Left’s hatred of Reagan was in sharp contrast with its fondness for Mikhail Gorbachev, a life-long communist and a former party apparatchik.
Knowing full well that the martial power ultimately decides the outcome of all great conflicts – be it between nations or civilizations – the Left appropriated the peace movement as its most important weapon. Whether overtly employed or not, the side with the stronger military invariably triumphs, which is precisely why the Left so vigorously opposed ours. Hiding their real intent behind the rhetoric of high ideals, they wielded the peace movement as a ploy with which they sought to bring about our defeat.
In the end, our military superiority carried the day. The Soviets just could not keep up with Reagan’s build-up and his plans for the prohibitively expensive ‘Star Wars’ proved to be the straw that broke their back. Despite throwing everything they had into the arms race, their inefficient centrally-planned economies were unable to pay the bills and their system felt apart.
The disintegration of the communist block was a painful setback for the Left’s hopes and aspirations. Although its loathing of capitalism and the West continued unabated, there was no one – at least for the time being – capable of taking them on.
This changed dramatically on September 11, 2001 when Islamic radicals burst on the scene in a spectacular fashion. Their attack and subsequent statements left no doubt about their goal – the annihilation of Western civilization. And like communists before them, they see capitalism as the source of our evil which is something their choice of target made painfully clear.
September 11 electrified the Left. More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was once again someone whose thinking about the West and capitalism agreed with its own. Most importantly, Islamists possessed the will and capability to destabilize or perhaps even bring down the object of their hate.
Sensing the opportunity, the Left immediately sprang to action. The first order of business was to dampen the retaliatory wrath of the United States. The effort was already underway on September 12 when a missive appeared on a popular leftist website urging restraint in responding to the attack.
Since then the Left has done everything it could to undermine our efforts in the War on Terror. Because of its crucial importance, opposition to the American military is once again their rallying cry. Portraying it as an instrument of domination and our troops as reprobates, they try to discredit it in the public’s eyes. Complaining of its bad image, they themselves do all they can to blacken it. After the Abu Ghraib photos became public, The New York Times kept the incident on its front page for nearly three months. Senator Kennedy reminded the world of it a year later from the floor of the Senate when he lamented the ‘first anniversary of Abu Ghraib.’ Senator Durbin compared our treatment of captured terrorists at Guantánamo Bay to the way prisoners were treated by Nazis.
Is it any surprise that Al-Jazeera regularly and approvingly quotes the left-leaning American media and liberal politicians? Kennedy’s and Durbin’s statements were broadcast hundreds of times, giving a compelling boost to arguments for jihad against America. Coming as it were from the horse’s mouth, they proved far more effective than anything Islamists themselves could ever say.
Sapping our troops’ morale by criminalizing their legitimate combat actions, those on the Left seek to extend full constitutional rights and protections to foreign-born terrorists. Always concerned about the rights of captured jihadists, they gleefully keep track of the American body count and cheer when it reaches milestone numbers. Chastising and defaming those who risk their lives to defend us, they protect and root for those who want to destroy us.
They call those who plot against us freedom fighters comparable to America’s founding fathers. Claiming we can never win, they advocate withdrawal from the battlefield. They do not want us to beat back the ruthless foe whose objective is our destruction. Rather they wish to shield him from our power and wrath so that he can accomplish his avowed purpose.
The man who spearheads our efforts is the Left’s most loathed man. His effectiveness has drawn hatred so excessively visceral and vindictive as to be unequalled in modern times. Anathema in the Left’s eyes, he has been called Hitler, an outlaw, a murderer and worse. Needless to say, the Left is doing all it can to impugn and shackle George W. Bush as he champions our cause in this conflict.
Once again the Left has turned to the peace movement as its weapon of choice. The idea is the same as it has always been – to checkmate our military to make it possible for the enemy to prevail. A civilization is only viable only insofar as it can defend itself. The Left’s peace campaign is a stratagem for our defeat. To go along with its demands would make us an easy target for our enemies. Any civilization that wants to survive must be able to protect itself and for that it needs a strong and effective military. Pacifism in the face of a determined adversary is always fatal. The Left knows it, which is why it advocates it.
***
Many people have been having lingering suspicions of the Left’s treachery which have not yet grown into a full conviction, because they were unable to conceive that there could be some in our midst wishing for our defeat.
Most of us would like to believe that the Left’s apparent sabotage of our war effort is not intentional. We would prefer to think that the Left is sincere, if badly misguided. But the evidence points to the contrary. The Left’s pacifism can be used as one of many examples. It only extends to the exercise of our military power while our belligerent enemies – be it the expansionistic Soviets or murderous Islamists – invariably get a pass. Contradictions such as this reveal the Left’s true agenda which is not what they say it is, peace in this instance, but our defeat.
The current unwillingness of most European governments to join the war effort is a case in point. More than one hundred years of socialist activism has produced a hardened Left which by now controls most of their institutions and bureaucracies. Having developed a form of governance which should be properly called ‘soft socialism,’ those in charge are intrinsically hostile to the West and its capitalistic foundation and as such disinclined to rise in their defense. Rather, if given the chance, they will help the other side. Semi-socialistic France, for example, does this habitually. Its passing of highly classified American information to Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the war is one of the more egregious examples.
Is it, then, so unexpected that European governing elites are so transparently accommodating toward Iran in its bid to develop nuclear weapons? Belligerently anti-western, the damage Iran could inflict with such weaponry could seriously destabilize if not throw into disarray the already shaky West. This is why the Left is so frantically keen on leaving Iran unmolested while chastising the U.S. for advocating measures to check this growing threat.
The Left’s treachery accounts for why four years after September 11 most western nations are not only unwilling to confront the enemy who openly calls for their destruction, but impugn the one country disposed to do something about it. The fate of the West is in America’s hands, but it gets little thanks from those whose survival it defends.
In this conflict, as in all others, the Left disingenuously calls for tolerance, understanding and dialogue while condemning tough measures which alone can safeguard our continued existence. In this it follows its traditional modus operandi of wrapping its stealth agendas in the cloak of high-flown rhetoric. Sadly, it has succeeded in duping many well-intentioned people into assisting an adversary whose implacable hatred can only be quenched by our eradication.
The depth and extent of the Left’s deceit will become clear once it is understood how their shared views on our society make them a stealth ally of Islamic radicals. The treachery must be exposed, because this war on terror – hard and protracted as it promises to be – cannot be won with a fifth column in our midst.
Vasko Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at [email protected].
November 30th, 2005
The War on Terror has brought on many complex problems and challenges. Perhaps none is more critical than the conduct of the political Left which is apparently set on sabotaging our efforts. Unable to come up with a logical explanation, political observers either throw up their hands in bewilderment or ascribe the Left’s posture to some irrational nihilistic impulse. But such conclusions are neither satisfactory nor correct.
The Left’s sabotage of this war is a deliberate attempt to give relief to the other side. This is because their corresponding views on capitalism and the West make Islamic radicals and the Left natural allies. The Left seeks to weaken us from within in order to help those whose shared worldview binds them in a common pact. Once we understand the nature of this stealth partnership, the reasons behind the Left’s often seemingly inexplicable actions will become alarmingly apparent.
But to do so, we must start at the beginning.
For reasons we need not go into here, some people in capitalism develop an aversion toward it. Needless to say, it can be seen and felt in many places – at anti-establishment rallies, globalization protests, in the ranks of our cultural and intellectual elites, among radical activists, and the movies of Michael Moore to mention just a few – where capitalism is spoken of as evil, exploitative, alienating, dehumanizing and such.
This hatred gives rise to the urge to strike out. On the crudest level, it is expressed as violence against capitalism’s symbols and institutions such as financial centers and corporations. The efforts to institutionalize capitalism-adverse policies are a more sophisticated manifestation of this impulse. Some of the more obvious ones are regulatory restrictions on the free market, the expansion of the state and the shackling of the private sector. It goes without saying that the possessors of this anti-capitalist outlook invariably congregate on the political Left.
The Left’s dislike of capitalism naturally extends to the whole of Western civilization as the two are indelibly and inextricably tied. Capitalism was, of course, born in the West and in time came to constitute its socio-economic foundation. Besides being its cradle, the West has also been capitalism’s leading practitioner and long-term champion.
In the Left’s worldview, then, the two great villains on this earth are capitalism and the West. As such, they need to be brought down and taken out of existence, which is precisely what the western Left has been trying to accomplish for the past one hundred years or so.
Its first great hope was the Soviet Union; naturally so, since the Soviet worldview closely coincided with its own. To begin with, the Soviets were virulently anti-capitalistic. Castigating capitalism as an unjust and exploitative system that had corrupted the whole of the Western world, they insisted that it was to be swept away as a matter of historical law. This, of course, was music to the Left’s ears.
Most importantly, the Soviets possessed the means and willingness to help those historical laws along. Belligerent and heavily-armed, they were openly preparing for that decisive confrontation that would push the West with its bourgeois culture into the abyss of the past. The result was the Cold war, an epic clash between two diametrically opposed socio-economic orders – Western democratic liberalism and communist totalitarianism.
Never in doubt where they stood, the Left tried to tip the scales in the Soviets’ favor by weakening the West from within. Their strategy was twofold: To dull the West’s fighting spirit and to undercut its military power. To affect the former, they professed that the Cold War was un-winnable, as it would only lead to mankind’s annihilation. It was therefore better not to fight than to be destroyed – hence the well-known slogan ‘better red than dead.’ They even hinted that to be taken over would not have been so undesirable, as the Soviet love for the common man made their system more humane than ours, based as it is on greed and selfishness.
To render us ineffective militarily, they strenuously opposed any effort to increase our strength or preparedness. Claiming it would only provoke the other side to an all-out nuclear confrontation, they eagerly advocated military cuts in order to demonstrate good will. Some went so far as to propose unilateral disarmament. This was, of course, precisely what the ever-aggressive Soviets were hoping for.
Sensing the Soviets were being outplayed, the Left became outright hysterical when Ronald Reagan strategically placed nuclear warheads in several European countries. They organized a wave of peace protests where they sought to whip up popular hysteria by predicting an imminent nuclear Armageddon. Claiming that the move was a needless provocation, they urged the U.S. to withdraw. America, however, stood its ground and stared down both the threats of the Soviet government and the demands of the peaceniks. As the architect of this stratagem and the West’s leader in the struggle against communism, Ronald Reagan was the Left’s most hated man. The Left’s hatred of Reagan was in sharp contrast with its fondness for Mikhail Gorbachev, a life-long communist and a former party apparatchik.
Knowing full well that the martial power ultimately decides the outcome of all great conflicts – be it between nations or civilizations – the Left appropriated the peace movement as its most important weapon. Whether overtly employed or not, the side with the stronger military invariably triumphs, which is precisely why the Left so vigorously opposed ours. Hiding their real intent behind the rhetoric of high ideals, they wielded the peace movement as a ploy with which they sought to bring about our defeat.
In the end, our military superiority carried the day. The Soviets just could not keep up with Reagan’s build-up and his plans for the prohibitively expensive ‘Star Wars’ proved to be the straw that broke their back. Despite throwing everything they had into the arms race, their inefficient centrally-planned economies were unable to pay the bills and their system felt apart.
The disintegration of the communist block was a painful setback for the Left’s hopes and aspirations. Although its loathing of capitalism and the West continued unabated, there was no one – at least for the time being – capable of taking them on.
This changed dramatically on September 11, 2001 when Islamic radicals burst on the scene in a spectacular fashion. Their attack and subsequent statements left no doubt about their goal – the annihilation of Western civilization. And like communists before them, they see capitalism as the source of our evil which is something their choice of target made painfully clear.
September 11 electrified the Left. More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was once again someone whose thinking about the West and capitalism agreed with its own. Most importantly, Islamists possessed the will and capability to destabilize or perhaps even bring down the object of their hate.
Sensing the opportunity, the Left immediately sprang to action. The first order of business was to dampen the retaliatory wrath of the United States. The effort was already underway on September 12 when a missive appeared on a popular leftist website urging restraint in responding to the attack.
Since then the Left has done everything it could to undermine our efforts in the War on Terror. Because of its crucial importance, opposition to the American military is once again their rallying cry. Portraying it as an instrument of domination and our troops as reprobates, they try to discredit it in the public’s eyes. Complaining of its bad image, they themselves do all they can to blacken it. After the Abu Ghraib photos became public, The New York Times kept the incident on its front page for nearly three months. Senator Kennedy reminded the world of it a year later from the floor of the Senate when he lamented the ‘first anniversary of Abu Ghraib.’ Senator Durbin compared our treatment of captured terrorists at Guantánamo Bay to the way prisoners were treated by Nazis.
Is it any surprise that Al-Jazeera regularly and approvingly quotes the left-leaning American media and liberal politicians? Kennedy’s and Durbin’s statements were broadcast hundreds of times, giving a compelling boost to arguments for jihad against America. Coming as it were from the horse’s mouth, they proved far more effective than anything Islamists themselves could ever say.
Sapping our troops’ morale by criminalizing their legitimate combat actions, those on the Left seek to extend full constitutional rights and protections to foreign-born terrorists. Always concerned about the rights of captured jihadists, they gleefully keep track of the American body count and cheer when it reaches milestone numbers. Chastising and defaming those who risk their lives to defend us, they protect and root for those who want to destroy us.
They call those who plot against us freedom fighters comparable to America’s founding fathers. Claiming we can never win, they advocate withdrawal from the battlefield. They do not want us to beat back the ruthless foe whose objective is our destruction. Rather they wish to shield him from our power and wrath so that he can accomplish his avowed purpose.
The man who spearheads our efforts is the Left’s most loathed man. His effectiveness has drawn hatred so excessively visceral and vindictive as to be unequalled in modern times. Anathema in the Left’s eyes, he has been called Hitler, an outlaw, a murderer and worse. Needless to say, the Left is doing all it can to impugn and shackle George W. Bush as he champions our cause in this conflict.
Once again the Left has turned to the peace movement as its weapon of choice. The idea is the same as it has always been – to checkmate our military to make it possible for the enemy to prevail. A civilization is only viable only insofar as it can defend itself. The Left’s peace campaign is a stratagem for our defeat. To go along with its demands would make us an easy target for our enemies. Any civilization that wants to survive must be able to protect itself and for that it needs a strong and effective military. Pacifism in the face of a determined adversary is always fatal. The Left knows it, which is why it advocates it.
***
Many people have been having lingering suspicions of the Left’s treachery which have not yet grown into a full conviction, because they were unable to conceive that there could be some in our midst wishing for our defeat.
Most of us would like to believe that the Left’s apparent sabotage of our war effort is not intentional. We would prefer to think that the Left is sincere, if badly misguided. But the evidence points to the contrary. The Left’s pacifism can be used as one of many examples. It only extends to the exercise of our military power while our belligerent enemies – be it the expansionistic Soviets or murderous Islamists – invariably get a pass. Contradictions such as this reveal the Left’s true agenda which is not what they say it is, peace in this instance, but our defeat.
The current unwillingness of most European governments to join the war effort is a case in point. More than one hundred years of socialist activism has produced a hardened Left which by now controls most of their institutions and bureaucracies. Having developed a form of governance which should be properly called ‘soft socialism,’ those in charge are intrinsically hostile to the West and its capitalistic foundation and as such disinclined to rise in their defense. Rather, if given the chance, they will help the other side. Semi-socialistic France, for example, does this habitually. Its passing of highly classified American information to Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the war is one of the more egregious examples.
Is it, then, so unexpected that European governing elites are so transparently accommodating toward Iran in its bid to develop nuclear weapons? Belligerently anti-western, the damage Iran could inflict with such weaponry could seriously destabilize if not throw into disarray the already shaky West. This is why the Left is so frantically keen on leaving Iran unmolested while chastising the U.S. for advocating measures to check this growing threat.
The Left’s treachery accounts for why four years after September 11 most western nations are not only unwilling to confront the enemy who openly calls for their destruction, but impugn the one country disposed to do something about it. The fate of the West is in America’s hands, but it gets little thanks from those whose survival it defends.
In this conflict, as in all others, the Left disingenuously calls for tolerance, understanding and dialogue while condemning tough measures which alone can safeguard our continued existence. In this it follows its traditional modus operandi of wrapping its stealth agendas in the cloak of high-flown rhetoric. Sadly, it has succeeded in duping many well-intentioned people into assisting an adversary whose implacable hatred can only be quenched by our eradication.
The depth and extent of the Left’s deceit will become clear once it is understood how their shared views on our society make them a stealth ally of Islamic radicals. The treachery must be exposed, because this war on terror – hard and protracted as it promises to be – cannot be won with a fifth column in our midst.
Vasko Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Everything that's going to be said about this video has apparently been said, and now we've moved on to saying things about each other. Things not in keeping with the High Road.
It's time for this to stop. I'm going to be taking a close look at Legal/Political today. Don't be surprised if some things close up. I wish it could be otherwise.
It's time for this to stop. I'm going to be taking a close look at Legal/Political today. Don't be surprised if some things close up. I wish it could be otherwise.
- Status
