So I notice LOTS of hate spewed towards A.N.S.W.E.R., does that mean

[radwriter0555]

they're doing a lot RIGHT?

I don't SEE any propaganda from them supporting communism and marxism, yet the freeks in freeptown are ALLLLLL in a tizzy, and for the first time yesterday, came across a mindless twit online who was CONVINCED they're inciting communism.

So, when I visit the website, I see a group of people committed to stopping this fake war and racism.

So tell me, which is the accurate representation of A.N.S.W.E.R.? Am I being duped, or is the fanatical right met with a forbidable opponent about whom they will lie to tear down the good works of?

Opinions? Thoughts, conjecture?

[Lindacooks]

1. Here's an easy test to see if you're on the right side:

Actually, two easy tests.

1. Republicans are for an issue - oppose it and you'll be right (that is, moral, upright, Christian if that's your thing, good, pure, etc.).

2. If you support the side that is receiving death threats from wackos, you will be right.

[info being]

5. If you believe the opposite of everything you see on TV

You will also be right.

[Speck Tater]

99. My take on knowing when you're right.

When the ultra-right wingers call you too liberal and the ultra-liberals call you too conservative you're probably in just about the right place.

[Guaranteed]

108. That's the one.

You are correct, sir (?).

[Guaranteed]

107. Ahhh

so Southern California is flooding right now. ;)

[liberalhistorian]

2. I saw that, when I was marching in D.C.

the freeps had all of maybe 12 counterprotestors at the most, and they had signs calling us commies and Suburban Stalinists, and that A.N.S.W.E.R. was nothing more than a socialist group inciting trouble and violence. Yeah, right!

[diamond14]

3. just on this DU board, there has been lots of calling the protestors

names like "Jew-haters", "twits" "wackos" "bizarre" (generating hundreds of DUers agreeing that the anti-war protestors are bizarre), 'communists', 'racists' 'bigots'...now calling the protestors 'consirators' and objecting to anything that anyone who attended says....

it seems that many DUers have opinions and are name-calling and didn't even bother to attend....to create this hostile environment for anti-war Patriots, is very similar to what nixon did...pretty soon people will be shot by the National Guard and Americans will say they deserved it....

IMO, there are people here at DU deliberate creating this nasty vicious attitude...critics and bashers abound....

[ShaneGR]

6. Hold on there a second

I think you are mistaking opposition to ANSWER as opposition to the people who marched. Two different things.

[JohnKleeb]

7. I understand that sgr but we didnt march and expect to come home

and basically bashed it felt like.

[diamond14]

13. well well....pusher of 'aren't they 'bizarre' posting...NO, we understand

what you did....shame...

at any time you could have stopped pushing your crap about how BIZARRE we are...you really worked hard to get anti-WAR American Patriots into a Kent State world, where everyone reading here thinks it's OK to shoot those BIZARRE people...

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. deleted

biting my tongue until i taste blood

[ShaneGR]

19. Go back and reread my post

I said the rally (And a lot of the speakers) were bizaree. NO WHERE in there will you find me bashing the people that marched. In fact, I basically point out that the marchers were hoodwinked into thinking the rally would just be about Iraq and the Patriot Act, when in fact ANSWER used it as an opportunity to air a lot of fringe politics.

I NEVER said the marchers were bizarre, I said a lot of the speakers were.

[diamond14]

32. the BIZARRE speakers were the Marchers, too...your logic that

just the 'rally' (which are the Marchers, and the anti-WAR protestors) and the speakers were BIZARRE is no excuse...

what you deliberately did, was to create the nixon cloud of "aren't they bizarre", which makes it easier for the police to shoot the American Patriots who did STAND UP....


and there were plenty of police out in full force...with their guns, with baseball bats, and clubs, and giant cans of mace...and aren't you really happy now that HUNDREDS of DUers answered your post, that you moved so many DUers into your idea, the nixonian world of 'shoot them, they are not Americans, they are Filipinos with red bandanas...shoot to kill"...yes, and the Egyptian guy disturbed you too...and all those Muslims, and people who you percieved are BIZARRE and NOT AMERICANS...

....so that you can be PROUD when American Patriots die....

[BurtWorm]

97. Please, amen1234

No protestors are being shot because they're protesting. Are you blaming American liberals for Kent State in 1968? Are you really going to blame DUers if there's another Kent State? What is the point of that? You seem to be using this mantra of yours to try to shut people up: "Either shut up about A.N.S.W.E.R. or you're as guilty as the Bushists." Is that what you seriously believe?

[diamond14]

132. it's creating the atmosphere for a Kent State type massacre

to happen....

"You seem to be using this mantra of yours to try to shut people up"

No, I simply posted the history of Kent State to show you how your posts create the environment to make it happen again...and IMO, you already know that...your remarks "No protestors are being shot because they're protesting" is untrue...there were two people killed in the pre-war protests, and lots were injured, some permanently....they were hit, kicked, beat, punched, run over by cars and trucks while standing on public sidewalks, and shot at...in Saturday's march, a group attacked the 'slow' Marchers near the end of the March, hitting old women with their nasty signs....

IMO, the situation is ripe for a Kent State Massacre to happen again...I walked with OUR Veterans on March 25, 2003 and saw the heavy police presence and the guns.....guess what, it wasn't American liberals that created the Kent State Massacres....it was the spewing of "communists' 'bums' 'bizarre' 'un-American' that came out of regular people just like you.....

I'm not trying to shut anyone up...and I am certain that you will continue to fuel the possibility of shootings....I'm simply pointing out some history, with the hope that some might learn from history...but as you show, some won't learn, and history will again repeat...the evidence is here now...

[BurtWorm]

134. Where is the evidence of this.

I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. No offense intended!

:hi:

[bearfartinthewoods]

157. wise move......

[ShaneGR]

115. Uhhhh, whatever you say

I think you need to have a drink. Here's one:

[BurtWorm]

26. Which DUers think it's OK to shoot protesters?

The rhetoric's getting just a little hot, don't you think? I've only seen DUers express discomfort with a rally that seemed to advocate shooting American soldiers.

[diamond14]

35. during Kent State, many Americans felt that the students were

'communists', 'hippies' 'bizarre' and after anti-war activists were shot dead by OUR National Guard...many Americans were clear that they deserved it (even two students were killed going to class deserved it, they weren't even part of the protests)....that was the environment where those shootings occurred...and that became OK...

BTW....there were MANY military families there, and I belong to a 'military family' and NOBODY 'advocated shooting American soldiers'
...you enjoy distorting and insulting OUR American military families, don't you???


BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW !

[BurtWorm]

43. Your rhetoric is just too hot.

You sound as bad as the Bushists, "Either you support a.n.s.w.e.r. or you support fascism." I didn't go to the rally, so I don't know what was said there. I'm only reporting on what I see here, which is some DUers expressing discomfort or criticism of the rally, which they have every right to do, and absolutely no DUers contributing to the atmosphere of violence against protest. We're on the same side, by and large. We protested the war. We believe Bush's Iraq policy is 100% flawed. But we differ on what to do know and how to get it done. Fruitful discussion is helped by hot rhetoric.

[jonnyblitz]

51. I don't recall anybody advocating shooting soldiers at the rally

there were military families on stage with pictures of their deployed relatives for chrissake! are u telling me they were advocating that their relatives be killed? you people seem to forget Veterans for Peace signed onto this march!! Using HOT rhetoric to accuse somebody else of using HOT rhetoric is funny.

[BurtWorm]

76. I'm only reporting what I heard others are charging.

Namely, that A.N.S.W.E.R., through calling for total support of the Iraqi resistance, is essentially condoning violence against American soldiers. And my point is that to criticize that stance is not equivalent to calling for violence against people who attended the protest. I've attended A.N.S.W.E.R. protests in the past myself, mainly because it was the only game in town, and I've always had problems with their thrust, but never with the idea that protest against Bushist policies in Iraq are necessary.

[diamond14]

81. passing it along, creating the environment for a Kent State massacre.

here's the people who could be killed, if DC police, FBI, or National Park police decided that they were too BIZARRE...

these are MILITARY FAMILIES, and soldiers....at the DC March on Saturday October 24, 2003....they object to shrub's policies...and THEY might get shot...yes, there was a lot of firepower out in DC...lots of armed police ready....all it takes is YOUR rhetoric to make Kent State happen....

[BurtWorm]

90. I can't think that way. I can't be whipped into silence

because some people believe criticizing A.N.S.W.E.R. encourages killing of protesters. No one is above criticism.

At the same time, criticism does not mean wholesale rejection, necessarily. A.N.S.W.E.R. is certainly to be commended for having the organization to make protest for others necessary.

(Why is that, anyway? Why can't MoveOn and True Majority organize real world events where the messenger is not quite as vulnerable to criticism as A.N.S.W.E.R. is? A paranoid might think anti-war demos sponsored by Trotskyists are "better for the war effort" than demos sponsored by people whose agenda is more clear, more straightforward and less tainted by something that can easily be portrayed as extremism.)

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

106. I'm sorry, but you're asking me to be reasonable to an unreasonable

post. There's no point debating with a grandstander.

[maha]

94. ANSWER demands UNCONDITIONAL support ...

of the Iraqi resistance to U.S. occupation. That means we're supposed to support the attacks and murders of soldiers and civilians. I do not.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/27/antiwar/index.html

[diamond14]

105. the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit was one of the sponsors....

here's some of those 'communist' 'radical' 'bizarre' 'twits'

[maha]

113. You are missing the poiint.

United for Peace and Justice was a major co-sponor, and I have great respect for UPJ.

This is not about the protest, but about ANSWER. Is ANSWER helping or hurting? I contend that ANSWER is an overall liability.

[bearfartinthewoods]

160. And support those who attack the UN and the Red Cross...

more targets for those who ANSWER call the iraqi resistance.....

[bowens43]

163. Cite please?

No? Didn't think so.

[Scott Lee]

16. Alot of DUers need to check their own attitudes

I agree with you. It's been kind of sickening to see some of these folks badmouthing ANSWER because it dares address the issues rather than do the usual dance-around to which these types of protests aspire.

A schism is developing, and a timely one at that. Is ANSWER really wrong? Is it NOT the case that US imperialism and growing aggressiveness is putting us in the USA at greater, not lesser peril? Is it NOT the case that this sick and twisted latter day version of manifest destiny is a threat to small nations and peoples who are in the unfortunate position of sitting on resource reserves the USA wants but the host nations cannot defend against such a predator?

Time for a reality check, DUers. You either stand for a new era, or you are conservatives. Make a choice.

[ShaneGR]

20. LOL

So I I don't stand with the communist party in North Korea, I'm a conservative? Eh? If I don't agree with the Phillipino resistance I'm a conservative?

What if I don't really have an opinion on those, but I just want to FOCUS our attention on Iraq and domestic policies... but some fringe group insists on hijacking the message with all of this fringe stuff?

Does that make me conservative?

[Scott Lee]

40. In an answer, yes

Try taking a look at the uber issue here...that of Manifest Destiny as a philosophical underpinning to continuing US interventions and military aggressiveness.

It has little to do with whether you like Castro, Kim Jong Il, or the man in the moon. It has EVERYTHING to do with, does the USA reserve for itself some sovereign right to determine the governments of other nations and peoples? You cannot isolate your opposition to the Iraq war and occupation from your feelings of the US's relationship to the rest of the world.

Well, you can, but it would be myopic, disjointed and surely a target for argument against you.

Don't vent your spleen at ANSWER for holding up the blood soaked history of US interference in the affairs of other nations. Vent at the government(s) of your own nation that practiced this foul doctrine, and work to destroy it.

[David__77]

46. Our fight is at home.

You are right that we must not be distracted like this. The struggle is a clear one.

[Blue_Chill]

130. That's a cop out apologist answer you just gave buddy

Let's not talk about all the fucking crazies ANSWER supports, let's instead look at this vague big picture....no not that one where the US has done some good....this one where they are just bullies and have done nothing at all good for the world.

I call bullshit. ANSWER the question next time.

[earthman dave]

165. He's obviously one of the "blame america first" crowd =)

[KoKo]

45. The Fringe Group you are talking about...asked you to the Party as their

Guest! Their Guest! Unless you want to go get the permits in DC and elsewhere and hire security and clean up the trash, and organize the speakers program then you don't have a right to critize WHO they have as their other guests. If you didn't like the party then that's fine. But, complaining about the other guests makes you seem very ungracious.

[jonnyblitz]

57. who did they "hijack" the message from?

It sounds like they stepped up to the plate and took charge to me. start your own group, get your own speakers, hire people to handle logistics/transportation. See how many people come to hear your Democrat establishment message . oh yeah, and enforce that dress code that everybody yesterday seemed to think was necessary...

[diamond14]

69. LOL? nixon called students 'bums' 'communists' 'radicals' (pic)

and American followed suite...that created the environment for Kent State, other major police brutality in the 70s...and the posting of some DUers here is also creating the same environment...on Saturday, many Patriotic Americans walked past heavily armed police with lots of guns from three police forces, the DC Police, the National Capital Police, and the FBI....and IMO, DUer calling protestors names, convincing others that the DC protestors are BIZARRE, communists, marxists, JEW-haters, radicals are doing a very good job of repeating history....and endangering protestors lives...for Kent State, it took 13 seconds....

-------------------------------------------------------------

History....Kent State Massacre.....

On May 4, 1970,
four Kent State University students were killed
and nine others wounded when numerous members of the Ohio National Guard --mostly from Troop G, the death-squad--
fired 67 bullets into a crowd of unarmed students during
an anti-war demonstration under the noonday sun.

All 13 of the Kent State massacre victims were
full-time students.

* Jeffrey Miller was shot through the head 275 feet away;
* Allison Krause was shot through the arm & chest 350 feet away;
* Bill Schroeder was shot in the back nearly 400 feet away;
* Sandy Scheuer was shot through the throat nearly 400 feet away.

other similar examples of excessive force,
mainly against minorities, at Jackson State,
South Carolina State College (Orangeburg), Southern University (Louisiana), University of Kansas, etc.;


just before OUR National Guard opened fire...


remember, at the DC March October 25, 2003, American Patriots faced much more fire-power than shown here...heavily armed police lined the streets and the roofs... I did not see any guns pointed at protestors, but it only takes a little encouragement, convincing others, that these are 'BIZARRE' "communists" "Jew-haters" "twits" and it can easily happen again...

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[diamond14]

96. reloading for Kent State: "North Korean Communists" "Phillipinos"

if you could stop laughing for a moment, you might realize that you continually remark about the "Phillipino" American...the one that you previous were offended about her 'red bandana' ???? and the Egyptian guy (an American, who spent his entire career in humanitarian efforts)...he offended you too...

but since you know so much about 'Phillipino' resistance...please note that the CORRECT spelling is:

"Filipino"

[bicentennial_baby]

22. You're either with us or against us, eh?

"Time for a reality check, DUers. You either stand for a new era, or you are conservatives. Make a choice."

How fucking progressive of you...

[eileen_d]

25. ANSWER has a right to express their views

And people at DU have a right to criticize ANSWER on some of their views.

There's your First Amendment "reality check"

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. developing????

you don't see this as a continuation of ohh..say...the green/dem debate?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

47. Who's "advocating shooting US soldiers?"

I don't see this anywhere at all. There is such a thing as civil resistance, not violent. That is an accusation based on a falsehood.

[diamond14]

111. (pic) American Soldiers at the March, Protesting bush* policies..

[Scott Lee]

53. Who died and left you in charge?

You will not give a "pass" to Castro and Kim Jong Il? What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that you support their overthrow at the hands of the USA, regardless of how their own people feel about them?

Have you ever considered what the feelings of a majority of Cubans or North Koreans are on this subject? You or I may not want to live under such systems, but has it dawned on you that others MIGHT be ok with it? Try as I might, I cannot come up with any solid evidence that the Cuban people in vast majority are deadset against Fidel Castro or the Cuban Socialist system. In fact, most seem to love the guy and MORE than most appear to solidly support their own brand of socialist system there.

Are they children needing the firm paternalistic guiding hand of Daddy USA?

I applaud your resistance to the Iraq war. But I posit to you that this is just the exterior of a much deeper, much darker issue that ANSWER dares address. The question is, do YOU dare address it as well?

[maha]

62. Hope the Cool Aid was good, son. n/t

[Selwynn]

38. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists....

Yes... I knew I had heard your sentiment somewhere before... :eyes:

I don't think there is anything wrong with people seeking to understand the agenda of answer. What's wrong is leaping to conclusiosn without evidence. I don't have enough evidence, so I don't have a personal conclusion on Answer. However, I am interested and concerned and I would like to try to find the facts - and I'm willing to accept the facts whether they're "comfortable" or not.

[Scott Lee]

48. Tough times, tough choices

"Yes... I knew I had heard your sentiment somewhere before..."

An unenviable parallel, to be sure. But in this case it has merit. I watch alot of the nastiness spouted at ANSWER and catch a whiff of apology for a truly atrocious US doctrine - that of Manifest Destiny, which is the grandfather of the outrageous plan for world domination currently being dubbed PNAC.

Facts are facts. If you seek to apologize for (and conserve) this outdated and sociopathic geopolitical philosophy, you are indeed one of the conservatives you so revile.

You seem to have a very deliberative leeway in your thought process, which is good. What is your opinion on the USA's view of the other nations of the world? Would you agree that America has some sort of God given right to interfere with or determine the natures of other peoples' countries and the systems under which they wish to live?

[maha]

61. Sorry. You are wrong.

It is NEVER the right choice to trade one form of tyranny to get rid of another, nor to assume that the only response to right-wing extremism is left-wing extremism.

Hope the Kool-Aid tasted good.

[Scott Lee]

122. Non Interference is "tyrannical"?

That's an odd definition.

Are you saying that it's correct to be a supremist bigot, who is Daddy to all the ignorant children of the world - and who should be allowed to spank his naughty children as long as it's a regime YOU don't like (like that horrible old Fidel)?

Talk about floating point ethics!

By the way, I'm not sure what your fascination is with KoolAid. Try the sugar free. It might calm you down.

[Selwynn]

66. What the hell are you babbling about.?

I am concered about accusations that ANSWER promotes KILLING OF AMERICANS. Ok, I don't support that approach. If you're telling me "either unquestioningly support an organization when you don't know what the stand for or you're a conservative" then you are insane.

I don't know if these allegations are true or not. But I am not going to be pushed into a place where someone says to me "either you support a group who's positions you don't personally know or you are an evil conservative? Why? Because I say so." Well, forgive me, but whoop-de-fricking-do.

I need to understnad what ANSWER really stands for - if they stand for encouraging to kill Americans (or anyone) in order to get their message accross then they can go to fucking hell. I can't be much more clear than that.

And if these allegations are not true then FINE - but I'm not going to applogize for trying to seek out the truth about them.

As for your other questions, don't insult me.

[maha]

73. From an article in today's Salon

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/27/antiwar/index1.html

Unlike many Democrats, ANSWER isn't confused about where it stands on Iraq. According to an ANSWER pamphlet, "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq," "The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.";

Sorry, but I do not give unconditional support to Iraqi anti-colonial resistance, because the "resistance" is killing U.S. troops as well as Iraqi non-combatants.

[Selwynn]

75. I agree with your interpretation and I do not give "unconditional" support

However, I'd be interested to know if it was ANSWERS intention to paint their support which such a broad brush that it includes murder, or if it was just a poorly worded, not well thought out oversight...

[maha]

86. ANSWER gives me the willies.

And they have for awhile. But as you say, I don't like it someone demands I accept a radical position wholesale in order not to be associated with another radical position. That's the very essence of tyranny, and I will have none of it.

[Scott Lee]

125. You need to pay more attention to what's posted

"I am concered about accusations that ANSWER promotes KILLING OF AMERICANS. Ok, I don't support that approach. If you're telling me "either unquestioningly support an organization when you don't know what the stand for or you're a conservative" then you are insane. "

Can you point out in any of my posts on this issue so far where I said that you are a conservative if you don't "support ANSWER" as an organization?

Let me save you some time and humiliation. There IS no such post.

What I did say is that if you support US turn of the century Manifest Destiny then you are a conservative. And I hold to that. It is intensely hypocritical to revile "conservatives" yet quietly support such a conservative, rightwing fascistic doctrine as Manifest Destiny - which is the underpinning for PNAC and what you see happening in Iraq today.

[Selwynn]

138. How about your own words then:

Is ANSWER really wrong? Is it NOT the case that US imperialism and growing aggressiveness is putting us in the USA at greater, not lesser peril? Is it NOT the case that this sick and twisted latter day version of manifest destiny is a threat to small nations and peoples who are in the unfortunate position of sitting on resource reserves the USA wants but the host nations cannot defend against such a predator?


So via Rhetorical question asking you are defending ANSWER, which leads you to this concluding remark:

Time for a reality check, DUers. You either stand for a new era, or you are conservatives. Make a choice.


Gee, how could I possibly mistake that for saying that if you don't support ANSWER you are conservative as being your argument...

[Scott Lee]

178. Man you're stubborn, but flawed

"Gee, how could I possibly mistake that for saying that if you don't support ANSWER you are conservative as being your argument...

"

Probably because you lack some basic comprehension skills. Let me assist you.

Find me anywhere that I directly equated "ANSWER" with a new era, an end to Manifest Destiny, or a combination of the two.

How did your search go? What's that? You found no such comment by me?

There ya go. Comprehension. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

[Rooktoven]

147. My issues with ANSWER

are their unconditional support of dictators (as long as they are dictators of the left) and their stance denying Israel's right to exist. If my being against that damages my progressive/socialist/left-leaning credentials, so be it.

[BurtWorm]

78. "You're either with us, or you're against us."

So Bush is right?

[Tinoire]

126. Standing for a new era- one that will be the conservatives worst nightmare

A new era that values workers over executive compensation and workers rights over stock portfolios.

I proudly leave my name on ANSWER's list and have no more interest in the limp-wristed, genteel, imitation groups the conservatives want to set up now than I have in the political direction they're trying to take the Left again...

ANSWER has been successfully organizing protests in the US for two years now... I guess Conservatives and fence-sitting swing voters just woke up and think this is a game. It's no game... People are dying... I could care less what the freeper neighbours think- I only care what I think of them.

[Blue_Chill]

129. Fence sitter are running right (away from ANSWER)

You won't find many Americans willing to give unconditional support to those attacking the UN and Americans in Iraq to "end the occupation" in Iraq. You won't find many fence sitters that support communism, a system that has never worked, here in the US.

I've attended the a ANSWER anti-Iraqi war before the war began. I opposed it then and I think it was a bad idea now. However I was disgusted at the pro-communism anti-US crap I saw. I was more annoyed that people were fine standing next to signs calling for the destruction of the US.

The people that support that are not supported by me. I consider ANSWER a liability to the democrats and wish they would start their own national political party so as not to be associated with the Dem's. They are a dishonest group that finds fault in all US action and no fault in the murders of those that oppose us.

[Tinoire]

136. Pro-communism anti-US crap?

What is it with all you newer posters?

What pro-Communist crap? Workers rights is pro-Communist crap now?

They have some socialist, populist tendencies but as someone who values people over capitalistic materialism, I don't mind that one bit.

Signs calling for the destruction of the US?!!!!!!!!!! Where? Which ones?

I have been to a ton of these marches and never once saw a sign like that!

I consider ANSWER a liability to the democrats and wish they would start their own national political party so as not to be associated with the Dem's. Keep wishing that and it just may come true! That's what the new blood at DU has been pushing for the last few months- Leftists out so the moderates can sell their soul to the devil and run after the elusive Swing voters again.

So on one side we've got some Jewish groups smearing ANSWER for their denunciation of that brutal occupation in Palestine and on the side the Clark supporters smearing it for their denunciation, replete with photos, of US obscenities in Yugoslavia. And to that add all the pro-occupation Democrats who don't want their corporate boat rocked.

If this is the New Dem party, please do not count on my vote. I'll be over yonder... with the "Communists". I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone in front of the Fence-sitters, the Reagan Democrats and the Freepers!

Jesus- the dishonest representation in your post is appalling. Signs calling for the destruction of the US my foot. Next you'll tell me there are neo-nazis there though it won't surprise me when the Corporate elite opposed to ANSWER's momentum in the US starts sending in undercover spooks dressed as neo-nazis just to smear the movement even more.

[Blue_Chill]

167. Yes.

What is it with all you newer posters?

I'm not new.

What pro-Communist crap? Workers rights is pro-Communist crap now?

Workers rights does not automatically mean communism.

They have some socialist, populist tendencies but as someone who values people over capitalistic materialism, I don't mind that one bit.

Capitalism works. It needs to be regulated but that isn't socialism. Capitalism made this nation what it is, the most powerful and rich nation on the planet. We are no where near perfect, but we certainly don't need to chase economic systems that brought us the great USSR and China.

Signs calling for the destruction of the US?!!!!!!!!!! Where? Which ones?

I have been to a ton of these marches and never once saw a sign like that!

I have been to a few myself and signs like the one below aren't as rare as I would like them to be



Keep wishing that and it just may come true! That's what the new blood at DU has been pushing for the last few months- Leftists out so the moderates can sell their soul to the devil and run after the elusive Swing voters again.

Once again I am not new, and the Dems have never been socialists. We work towards leveling the playing field and social programs that help those that need it. Not destroying our economic system and bitching about the rich man.

So on one side we've got some Jewish groups smearing ANSWER for their denunciation of that brutal occupation in Palestine and on the side the Clark supporters smearing it for their denunciation, replete with photos, of US obscenities in Yugoslavia. And to that add all the pro-occupation Democrats who don't want their corporate boat rocked.

Brutal occupation of Palestine? That's just the kind of one sided warped reality that drives away votes.

And I love how groups like ANSWER never fail to find fault in any US action but never flinch at the actions of those the US has opposed and what they were doing. I very much supported US involvment in Yugoslavia.

As for pro corp democrats I don't really follow you. What would you have us do? Pass laws that destroy these evil corp's so we can create a 30-40% unemployment? It's a delicate situation and jobs are already going over sea's in case you haven' noticed. It's a balancing act not a rabid idealistic attack that is needed to aid this nation.

If this is the New Dem party, please do not count on my vote. I'll be over yonder... with the "Communists". I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone in front of the Fence-sitters, the Reagan Democrats and the Freepers!

That doesn't really bother me being that I dislike socialism as much as neo-conservative fascism.

[BurtWorm]

139. What if A.N.S.W.E.R. is "leading" the anti-war movement

and that's just how the "conservatives" like it, with a nice big fat Stalinist target at the top of the anti-war movement? Then they get to keep their war and they don't even have to work to marginalize the left, because the left leaps into the margins all by itself!

PS: That would mean the "conservatives" don't fear A.N.S.W.E.R. at all. Quite the contrary!

[Rich Hunt]

146. thanks

Do these people even realize that sometimes fake "radicals" infiltrate left-wing groups in order to discredit them? Even legitimate vanguard cults are doing the right wing a huuuuge favor.

Do they realize that obscenely affluent college kids are recruited by vanguard cults who exploit, patronize, and generally keep their distance from real working-class and poor people?

[Tinoire]

158. Funny then that they would call it their arch nemesis!

Our arch nemesis International A.N.S.W.E.R. is planning a hatefest Saturday, October 25, in our nation's capital. They plan on marching past the White House right up to the Pentagon to protest American 'imperialism' and 'occupation', and a full rostrum of the Left's leaders are assembled to speak. You better believe the mainstream media is going to cover this as some sort of proof that American public opinion is turning against our mission in Iraq.

We have to decide if we're going to let that happen.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988642/posts

I'm ok with it. Those who aren't can form their own group.

[BurtWorm]

169. And did the mainstream media cover it as freepers believed it would?

Not as far as I can tell. The mainstream media ignored it. But the converted were preached to!

[screembloodymurder]

151. What I saw in DC was not bizarre

I guess you just had to be there to realize that:

"This (diversity)... is what democracy looks like".

Personally, I can think of nothing more beautiful than a group of people, all races, all ages and all walks of life, coming together with just one goal in common: to fulfill their civic responsibility to voice their dissent.

[Tinoire]

58. A recent phenomenon at DU

Makes you scartch your head and wonder just what crawled out of the woodwork to discuss things with us before the Primaries.

It's really too funny to watch their exploits ;)

[mikehiggins]

4. You're being duped

Not really. They seem to be sincere and it is really hard to be part of the International Communist Conspiracy these days. However, they are, IMHO, part of that widespread grouping of people that continue to beleive that large scale, non-violent protests mean anything in 2003-4.

They don't. I would be much more impressed with these groups if they spent their time in local communities with voter registration, etc., instead of using up their energy and resources in putting people on the street in futile "flag waving" pursuits.

It's like the claim that any rallies, etc., should include "teach-ins" and neo-60's hippy-dippy crap like that. If only tie-dyed teeshirts would come back!

Somebody commented that the Freepie-Creepies don't put lots of people on the street. That's because they're busy working the system to their advantage. We're just creating photo-ops for tv talking heads that are looking to mock and disparage anything to the left of Attila.

We can change the world, as somebody once sang, but not through mass demonstrations. We have to do it the way the Right did it; through town councils and county executives and mayors and governors and Congresspeople. Otherwise we concede the future of America and the world to them.

That's my gripe with ANSWER and groups like them.

Your mileage may vary.

[wtmusic]

10. LOL yes write your mayor today

How condescending. I think 25,000 people marching in DC might have a little more effect than writing a letter to my mayor, but what do I know?

[DUreader]

14. Yeah, protests do nothing, don't tell the Bolivians, its a secret

just for US.

[laura888]

174. bingo! we have a winner! Bolivian protests forced the resignation of...

...Bolivia's president. If those protests included some fringe leftist element, would you just bash the entire protest?

Are'nt we all trying to achieve what the Bolivians did? Who is organizing marches and rallies to do those things besides ANSWER?

C'mon now - step up to the plate or quit your whining!!

[DUreader]

15. doubleposted

[diamond14]

17. so, have YOU spent any time on your stated objectives, voter

registration, how hard have YOU worked on that...because voter registration was a MAJOR issue at the DC March...many people in that march have worked on that issue...have YOU??? or do you prefer to just whine and complain here...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

8. Answer does not have the market cornered on Anti-War sentiment

ANSWER was against military action in Afghanistan which is stupid and insane.

It pisses me off to go to an anti-war rally and have the speakers start spewing bullshit off about Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. when they do not speak for me nor 80% of the people at the rally.

[Atlant]

21. Yeah, using (e.g.) the CIA in Afghanistan to actually *CAPTURE* ObL...

Yeah, using (e.g.) the CIA in Afghanistan to actually CAPTURE
Osama bin Laden (or more likely, to simply have arranged his capture)
would have been a really losing strategy, ehh? Our military action
there was so much more succesful!

Not.

Atlant

[diamond14]

23. but ThorsteinVeblin, did you actually GO to the rally, so that you

actually know what you're talking about?

did you actually survey to find out if your BOLD claim that 'they do not speak for....80 % of the people at the rally'??? are you sure it wasn't 82 % ???


famous words to remember:
Sally Baron, from Hurley Wisconsin...."....he's such a Whistle-Ass"

[ThorsteinVeblen]

148. The last rally I went to was in Seattle. The Iraq protests were at

least 800% bigger than the Afghanistan protests. No one except for the most flaky of the greens marched in protest of Afghansitan.

Everyone in Seattle was and is against the Iraq war. There were only a few who were against Afghanistan. Anecdotal evidence but true nonetheless.

[Tinoire]

150. WTF?!

No one except for the most flaky of the greens marched in protest of Afghanistan.

Do a search right here at DU! Plenty of Dems were marching against Afghanistan! We collected quite a bit of money, right here at DU, to deliver to Senator Byrd as an appreciation for his stand against the war against Afghanistan.

It was at that point that we started, as DUers marching against the war against Afghanistan and condemning what was going on there.

Your assertion that no one except for the most flaky of the greens marched in protest of Afghanistan is garbage. Maybe you're confusing this with something you read on another board because DUers were incensed and that's precisely when we started organizing!

[diamond14]

172. so is that how you know that '80% of the people' here in DC

were disagreeing with the speakers??? from watching TV up in Seattle???

[bowens43]

33. What exactly has the military action in Afghanistan accomplished?

Osama is still on the loose.
Omar is still on the loose.
The country , other then Kabul, is entirely controlled by warlords.
US soldiers are still dying frequently.
The Taliban is on the rise.
The heroin production has reached an all time high.
Terrorist attacks occur on a regular basis.
Women are still oppressed.
Militant Islam is still growing.

Opposing bushes cowboy stunt in Afghanistan was neither 'stupid' nor 'insane'.....however, supporting it......

[maha]

37. Sending the military after al Qaeda after September 11 was NOT a mistake.

The mistake was that Rummy and his Pentagon Pals blew it. Not enough troops were deployed quickly enough, and most of al Qaeda got away. And then they pulled resources out of Afghanistan way too quickly because they were hell bent on invading Iraq.

September 11 DID happen, you know. That was not Bushie propaganga. I saw it.

[bowens43]

42. What has it accomplished?

Keep in mind that the Taliban offered to turn bin laden and his top people over to the US and bush refused. By their own admission , the plans for the attack on Afghanistan were sitting on bushes desk at least two days BEFORE 911. To the bushies , 911 was just a happy coincidence, an excuse for their attack , not the reason. The war in Afghanistan was about a pipeline, it wasn't about fighting terrorism.

[maha]

56. What has ANSWER accomplished?

You are saying if an objective has not been accomplished, then it was wrong to make the effort to begin with? Yeah, that makes sense. By the same logic, since ANSWER has not brought peace to the world, they might as well close up shop.

I'm saying the objective was worthwhile, but that the execution was messed up.

"Keep in mind that the Taliban offered to turn bin laden and his top people over to the US and bush refused."

That's not exactly how I remember it. What I remember is that the Taliban was just stalling; it wasn't an honest offer.

Remember, the Taliban were not nice people. Just because George Bush sent soldiers after them does not turn them into heroes. They were very evil and very twisted and not be be trusted.

"By their own admission , the plans for the attack on Afghanistan were sitting on bushes desk at least two days BEFORE 911."

Those plans were based on plans generated by the Clinton Administration after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

"On Nov. 7 <2000>, Berger met with William Cohen, then Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon. The time had come, said Berger, for the Pentagon to rethink its approach to operations against bin Laden. 'We've been hit many times, and we'll be hit again,' Berger said. 'Yet we have no option beyond cruise missiles.' He wanted 'boots on the ground'--U.S. special-ops forces deployed inside Afghanistan on a search-and-destroy mission targeting bin Laden. Cohen said he would look at the idea, but he and General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were dead set against it. They feared a repeat of Desert One, the 1980 fiasco in which special-ops commandos crashed in Iran during an abortive mission to rescue American hostages." -- Michael Elliott, "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time, August 12, 2002

(You have to pay for the article to view it online.)

Sandy Berger and others went ahead and drew up these plans, and presented them to the Bushies in January 2001. And the Bushies sat on them and did nothing. An amended version of the plans had finally made their way to Bush's desk right before September 11.

"To the bushies , 911 was just a happy coincidence, an excuse for their attack , not the reason. The war in Afghanistan was about a pipeline, it wasn't about fighting terrorism."

It wasn't JUST about pipelines.

The U.S.S. Cole disaster really happened. September 11 really happened. These matters REQUIRED a response. Just because the Bushies came up with the WRONG response doesn't change that.

[bowens43]

70. How many innocent people has ANSWER killed?

You are saying if an objective has not been accomplished, then it was wrong to make the effort to begin with? Yeah, that makes sense. By the same logic, since ANSWER has not brought peace to the world, they might as well close up shop.

ANSWERs efforts didn't result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people.

I'm saying the objective was worthwhile, but that the execution was messed up.

the objective was a pipeline and the remaking of the middle east.

"Keep in mind that the Taliban offered to turn bin laden and his top people over to the US and bush refused."

That's not exactly how I remember it. What I remember is that the Taliban was just stalling; it wasn't an honest offer.

All they asked was to see the same evidnce that bush provided to the UN security council. A reasonable request. Bush refused.


Remember, the Taliban were not nice people. Just because George Bush sent soldiers after them does not turn them into heroes. They were very evil and very twisted and not be be trusted.

irrelevant. The US regularly deals with 'not nice people' without bombing the hell out of them.

"By their own admission , the plans for the attack on Afghanistan were sitting on bushes desk at least two days BEFORE 911."

Those plans were based on plans generated by the Clinton Administration after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

"On Nov. 7 <2000>, Berger met with William Cohen, then Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon. The time had come, said Berger, for the Pentagon to rethink its approach to operations against bin Laden. 'We've been hit many times, and we'll be hit again,' Berger said. 'Yet we have no option beyond cruise missiles.' He wanted 'boots on the ground'--U.S. special-ops forces deployed inside Afghanistan on a search-and-destroy mission targeting bin Laden. Cohen said he would look at the idea, but he and General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were dead set against it. They feared a repeat of Desert One, the 1980 fiasco in which special-ops commandos crashed in Iran during an abortive mission to rescue American hostages." -- Michael Elliott, "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time, August 12, 2002
(You have to pay for the article to view it online.)

Sandy Berger and others went ahead and drew up these plans, and presented them to the Bushies in January 2001. And the Bushies sat on them and did nothing. An amended version of the plans had finally made their way to Bush's desk right before September 11.

So you admit that the attack on Afghanistan wasn't about 911? Good. We're making progress.

"To the bushies , 911 was just a happy coincidence, an excuse for their attack , not the reason. The war in Afghanistan was about a pipeline, it wasn't about fighting terrorism."

It wasn't JUST about pipelines.

You're right, it wasn't just about pipelines. It was also about initiating PNACs plan to remake the middle east.

The U.S.S. Cole disaster really happened.

were the people of Afghanastan responsible for the Cole? My guess is that 90% of them never even heard of it.

September 11 really happened. These matters REQUIRED a response. Just because the Bushies came up with the WRONG response doesn't change that.

So even the wrong response is better then no response? Not in my book.

[maha]

80. I'm sorry you won't acknowledge the realiyt of September 11.

Maybe it's different for me because I was an eyewitness. You want to pretend September 11 was just some Bushie propaganda and we should have ignored it.

It is an unfortunate fact that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan; hence, the military action was aimed at AFghanistan. The military action PLANNED BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION BEFORE BUSH WAS EVEN 'SELECTED', btw, and that had finally made it's way with some alterations to Bush's desk by September 10 was against Afghanistan because that's where al Qaeda was, and al Qaeda was our enemy. They are the ones who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11.

After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000, the Clinton Administration drew up plans for a ground and special forces invasion of Afghanistan, and they handed these plans off to the Bushies in January 2001. The Bush's came into office with a beautiful excuse for invading Afghanistan and plans in hand, but they didn't do it, because they weren't all that interested in Afghanistan. They were especially not interested in going after Osama bin Laden, as the bin Ladens were old business cronies, dontcha know? So they dragged their feet about invading Afghanistan until September 11 made it necessary.

But the attack on Iraq was not necessary. THAT'S the war PNAC dreamed up.

I have a lot of infor on the plans for invasion of Afghanistan on this web site.

http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/mahachronicles/index.html

Pay particular attention to this:

http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/mahachronicles/id1.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=104&topic_id=598728&mesg_id=599745


"On Nov. 7 <2000>, Berger met with William Cohen, then Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon. The time had come, said Berger, for the Pentagon to rethink its approach to operations against bin Laden. 'We've been hit many times, and we'll be hit again,' Berger said. 'Yet we have no option beyond cruise missiles.' He wanted 'boots on the ground'--U.S. special-ops forces deployed inside Afghanistan on a search-and-destroy mission targeting bin Laden. Cohen said he would look at the idea, but he and General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were dead set against it. They feared a repeat of Desert One, the 1980 fiasco in which special-ops commandos crashed in Iran during an abortive mission to rescue American hostages." -- Michael Elliott, "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time, August 12, 2002

[bowens43]

124. What complete and utter nonsense.

I have never said that 911 was 'bush propaganda'. I can see that further conversation on this issue , with you, is useless. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Peace

[ThorsteinVeblen]

149. How many people has Al-Quada killed?

[bowens43]

154. A bunch

but what does that have to do with the slaughter of innocent civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

95. Quite a few of us saw the events of 9-11-2001...but there is a growing...

...number of people that are no longer sure of the Bushies' version of events. Questions for you:

1) How do we know who attacked us on 9-11-2001?

2) Why were the interceptors delayed by 20-30 minutes?

3) Why was Rumsfeld telling people in his organization on 9-11-2001 to immediately start planning for an attack on Iraq?

4) How was it possible for the identities of the hijackers to have been uncovered and published so quickly? It reminds me of the major rush to publish information on Oswald BEFORE he was even in custody.

5) If the Bushies thought Air Force One was a target on 9-11-2001, why did they delay another 30-40 minutes before leaving that Florida classroom?

6) How is it that Dubya told two different groups visiting the White House that he saw the FIRST plane hit the WTC and then was later told by Card of the SECOND impact? How would it have been possible for him to have seen the first impact unless there was not only foreknowledge of the attack but a camera set up to record the events?

7) How do we know that Al Qaeda was located in Afghanistan...because the Bushies told us to believe it? Is that a similar story to that of WMDs in Iraq?

[maha]

117. The Middle Path

As an eyewitness I'm a bit obsessed with 9/11. About a year and a half ago I was so upset at Bush's lies about it I went into hypermode and put together this timeline:

http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/mahachronicles/index.html

I probably could tell YOU a few things that the Bush's aren't being honest about regarding September 11 that haven't even occurred to you.

However, what I'm seeing now is that some whopping counter-myths have grown up around the events of September 11 that are just as bogus. For example, that there is NO EVIDENCE al Qaeda was behind September 11, or that the airplanes really didn't bring down the towers, or that the military action in AFGHANISTAN had no connection to terrorism.

It's STUPID to assume that begas A is false, B must be true. Just because the Bushie version of September 11 is a lie doesn't prove ANSWER is telling the truth.

BTW, I just found a document on the ANSWER web site that puts World War II and the Berlin airlift on a list of "A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS." Do you think America's entry into World War II and the Berlin airlift were MILITARY INTERVENTIONS? Or is ANSWER propagandizing just a tad?

Here's the list:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/usmilitaryinterventions.pdf

[Media_Lies_Daily]

142. Okay...let's take a look at three of your so-called "counter-myths"...

...you stated the following:

"However, what I'm seeing now is that some whopping counter-myths have grown up around the events of September 11 that are just as bogus. For example, that there is NO EVIDENCE al Qaeda was behind September 11, or that the airplanes really didn't bring down the towers, or that the military action in AFGHANISTAN had no connection to terrorism."

1) Where's your evidence that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the events of 09-11-2003? Are you basing your conclusion on what you've been told by the Bushies via the state-controlled media at that time?

2) I don't have any problem with the idea that the airliners were solely responsible for bring down the WTC. None at all, in fact. But, I am curious why YOU brought it up since I never mentioned it in my original comments. The initial impact of the airliners striking each of the towers at an angle took out several floors and most of the exterior supporting structural members on at least one side of each tower. The exploding/burning jet fuel further weakened the structure of the buildings so as to cause their eventual fatal collapse. As each of the towers collapsed jets of flame were seen to shoot out of floors below the collapsing sections. This was caused by the weight of each successive collapsing floor blasting the burning contents of each floor out through the sides of the bulidings.

3) Since you can't prove #1 above, how can you tell me that our attack on Afghanistan WAS indeed connected to "terrorism"? The attack was SOLD to the American people as an attack on terrorism and revenge for 09-11-2001, but the real reason is much more strongly connected to oil and natural gas.

And since when is it "STUPID" to express an opinion on this board? If you don't like what I'm saying, find some way to refute it with actual facts instead of launching a rant with nothing to back it up.

[charlie]

152. ANSWER's beef about the airlift

seems to be that the US used nuke-laden bombers for security, not the airlift itself.

[radwriter0555]

52. Wellll it DID get that heroin production back on track.. having lapsed

and all.

That was a primary goal of the mission.

And they can now use that real estate IF the oil co whores decide to build the most insane pipeline on the planet for the crappy Uszbekistan crude that's almost worthless after all.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED as bush would say!

P.S. Bets on that in 10 years Karzai will be the au currente demonized dictator to overthrow!

[Pastiche423]

39. Would you please explain to me

why you believe the invasion of Afghanistan was NOT stupid and insane.

I am having a hard time understanding why the fuck our country's "leaders" demanded we bomb one of the poorest countries, if not the poorest. There were no Afghanis on the planes that were hijacked on September 11, 2001. No proof has been brought forth to the citizens of our country as to who commandeered the attacks.

Why did we bomb Afghanistan? Do you have evidence that I somehow missed? If so, please post it here.

[maha]

59. Because.

Most of Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban, who were harboring most of al Qaeda and bin Laden. And there is copious evidence that al Qaeda and bin Laden were behind September 11. That is not Bushie propganda, but factual.

[bowens43]

79. It's also 'factual'

that the Al Qaeda received most of it's financial support from Saudi Arabia. Should we bomb them to? How about Pakistan? We know they also harbored Al Qaeda. Somalia? Yemen? Where do you want to stop?

[maha]

82. We could have stopped with Afghanistan.

I apologize for being an eyewitness to the destruction of the WTC towers. September 11 is real to me, not just something that was on television awhile back.

[Pastiche423]

83. Can you provide links

to the "copious evidence" you talk about? I've seen no evidence, copious or not. Where has this "factual" evidence been published?

[maha]

88. There are these things called BOOKS.

Maybe you've seen them. They aren't online. Here's one you can start with:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375508597/104-4951011-2839932?v=glance

There are others. This is the first one that came to mind.

[Pastiche423]

101. Books are evidence?

Wars are predicated on what someone wrote in a book? A book that was written prior to the attacks is evidence? Was the author pyschic? Did he know about the plot to attack?


My request was for evidence that proved that either the Afghanistan citizens, OBL or Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks.

You din't give me evidence.

[maha]

118. The evidence is in the books.

You have to read the books to see what the evidence is. I'm not aware of information of the same quality that's available online.

[Pastiche423]

121. Psychic books?

The book you linked to in an above post, was written PRIOR to September 11, 2001. How in the hell could that be evidence?

[Tinoire]

84. Ah... Well they speak for me & all the DUers who were protesting back then

As I recall, at the time, almost every single posting DUer was horrified about military action in Afghanistan!

Hell we even took up a collection to send flowers to Senator Byrd for speaking out against what we were planning to do in Afghanistan!

Yoohooo ANSWER! Keep speaking for me and all the concerned DUers who were 100% behind Senator Byrd!


And not just some wars or a little racism but ALL and not some little middle-American cause du jour!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[wtmusic]

9. Ramsey Clark is a little too rational,

is a former SOS, and has seen it all before. It drives them nucking futs.

[MrPrax]

11. Might be leftover from the Lernergate,

snowjob from last Spring...
The new rap is that anti-semticism is alive and well on the Left and so-call Progressive publications like Tikkun and the Nation have been bashing ANSWER as anti-semtic.
I personally think that is the last straw on the subject and the Left should start to move more precisely on those who continue to support Israel--it is completely inconsistent with a policy of universal human rights and condemnation of imperialism.
I also think in the long run, the damage some of these left Zionists have done is to themselves. People on the Left have stood proud and fought valiantly against racism and anti-semticism over the years.
If these 'people' (so called Progressives) are willing to destroy that good will over continued aid/support to Israel...then to hell with them.

Here is some 'memory hole' stuff on the Lernergate saga and the well-oiled attack on ANSWER by the usual suspects...

http://www.counterpunch.org/lerner02142003.html

"But Rabbi Lerner was blackballed and banned by A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four organizing committees for the S.F. demonstration expected to attract hundreds of thousands. The reason: Lerner had been critical of the way that A.N.S.W.E.R. has used the anti-war demonstrations to put forward anti-Israel propaganda...."
among other highlights

[maha]

34. Another view of Lernergate, from Salon

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/12/lerner_ban/index.html

Even as other members of the democratic left have denounced the hardcore Maoists and Stalinists behind much recent antiwar organizing, Michael Lerner, the dovish San Francisco rabbi and editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun, has defended the role of sectarians in the movement. When members of his congregation complained about the stridently anti-Israel rhetoric at demonstrations sponsored by ANSWER, a front group for the Workers World party, he urged them to turn out anyway, and Tikkun sent busloads of people to both Washington and San Francisco. He co-signed a letter to Salon criticizing Salon's criticism of ANSWER and Not In Our Name, which is connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.

So Lerner was understandably outraged to learn that he'd been banned from speaking at the San Francisco rally ANSWER is co-sponsoring on Sunday. The reason for his banishment remains murky. This much is clear: Organizers from the four groups collaborating on the rally -- ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, Not In Our Name and Bay Area United Against War -- agreed that any one partner could veto a proposed speaker who had publicly criticized it, and ANSWER vetoed Lerner.

Some say that's because Lerner, while urging people to work with ANSWER on peace movement issues, also has denounced the group's rabidly anti-Israel, pro-Saddam politics. But Lerner says that the agreement giving ANSWER veto power over its critics was merely a pretext used by the group as an excuse to keep him off stage. The real reason for his exclusion, Lerner believes, is that, while he is unrelenting in his opposition to Ariel Sharon's government and his call for Palestinian statehood, he supports Israel's right to exist and condemns Palestinian terrorism. An ANSWER spokesman seemed to confirm Lerner's theory when he told WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer that the group wouldn't allow a "pro-Israel" speaker at its demonstrations. A Tikkun press release framed the decision this way: "Progressive Rabbi Banned From Speaking at Peace Rally Because of His Pro-Israel Stance."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/12/lerner_ban/index.html

[diamond14]

77. both 'communists' and 'rabid'.....coalition included Archdiocese

of Detroit...and hundreds of other 'rabid' people...walking peacefully through the streets of OUR Nation's Capital....

this fuels another Kent State Massacre against OUR 'rapid' Veterans and their families, our religious leaders from mainstream churches, and lots of regular middle-class taxpaying Patriotic Americans...

[maha]

92. That's a point.

On the other hand, I hate to see the anti-war movement hijacked by extremists factions like ANSWER>

[maha]

12. They've cleaned a lot of the Marxist rhetoric off their web site.

This time last year there were many Marxist links, plus they were selling Marxist books. But now it's disappeared. Hmm.

[JackRiddler]

60. Isn't this a good sign then?

Okay, so let's say there's a core of commies running IAC in turn organizing ANSWER. They have no ICC (Intl Commie Conspiracy) to hook up to. They behave. The majority of ANSWER activists have little to do with them. The majority of marchers barely know what ANSWER is, nor do they care. Everyone's there against the war and occupation. There is some talk of extraneous issues, which I confess bothers me although I even agree (Mumia), simply because you should never disturb the focus. (Besides, compared to 700,000 black men in prison, mostly because of insane drug laws, Mumia is a symbol... now let's see ANSWER get really radical and call for decriminalization - ha!)

Anyways, what's the problem? Any fear that IAC is going to become the neo-neo-cons of a future administration, arming North Korea and supporting invasions of Utah to overthrow the Mormon dictatorship? No. So what's the problem when they are mainly being constructive?

[maha]

65. It's a sign they aren't being honest about their true intent. n/t

The word for today, children, is DUPE.

[Tinoire]

131. Marxists! OMG! Those are Communists!

Run! Head for the hills! The Communists are here!


What's next Maha?

McCarthyism? Whoops- we have that with Daniel Pipe's Campus Watch...

Hollywood Black Lists? Whoops- those are making an insidious resurgence according to activists like Danny Glover

Enemies of the state being hauled away in the dead of night? Whoops- we have that according to the Muslims in the US

CIA operations against US citizens? Well that's back too!

Wow! But your problem is Marxists. :eyes:

I need a new party! One where Reaganism can't get a foot-hold!

[Forkboy]

156. It's getting fucking scary isn't it?

[info being]

177. Green

I'm becoming more Green every day I spend here.

[DBoon]

24. I bet they are sectarian leftists

From personal experience, these are very nasty intolerant people, who are very driven, but impossible to work with in any sane way.

Charges of communism are absurd in today's world - kind of like charges of "formenting Jacobinism". I can't believe anyone would take this seriously.

If we don't like ANSWER, the only sane response is to channel come energy of our own into organizing efforts.

Attacking ANSWER is very counter-productive, at this moment they are the only ones doing something on a large scale.

[Rich Hunt]

30. thank you, DBoon!

...and with a name like "DBoon", no one can say you're a suburban moderate who just doesn't want to associate with radicals!

You are exactly right - they have their own agenda and are unpleasant to deal with on a personal level.

[David__77]

50. "Fomenting Jacobinism": I like that!

That charge is as absurd as anti-communism is.

[maha]

27. Todd Gitlin on A.N.S.W.E.R.

From a Salon interview Emphasis (in blue) added by me, because I was at the NYC protests and know what he's saying is true.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/07/19/gitlin/index.html

Gitlin was prominent in the anti-Vietnam war movement. More information about him with the article.

Is there a modern equivalent of Students for a Democratic Society? I'm wondering how you'd compare SDS to ANSWER, MoveOn...

It's apples and prickly pears. I mean, ANSWER is a cult. It's a tightly organized sect that operates in the shadows and tries to bull its way into power. SDS was a much more open and democratic organization -- at least until the bitter end. Couldn't be more different.

Yet ANSWER is the group most strongly associated with the Iraqi antiwar protests...

ANSWER was originally the movement against the war, but I think they were superseded. ANSWER couldn't bring themselves to criticize Saddam Hussein. They seemed to believe that any use of American power, anywhere, under any circumstances, was illegitimate and imperial ... The sort of fanaticism they displayed did allow them to jump forward getting permits for protests and so forth, but it also very quickly limited the support they received, which is why other people started organizing other networks, which then did mobilize the largest demonstrations: for example, the one in New York, which was not done by ANSWER -- though they were standing there with signs trying to look like they had. In reality it was United for Peace and Justice.

There's no question that sectarian groups can accomplish very specific objectives in a big hurry. What they're not good at doing is moving public opinion, or moving the real political forces.

So it sounds like ANSWER would be more comparable to the Weathermen, if anything...

The history is inverted, but yes, the spirit is similar in that they, like the Weathermen, talk a sort of abstract language which doesn't make sense to anyone not standing in their immediate circle. It's a jargon that only sounds plausible if you take it as an emotional rant. They're not only speaking impractically about the world, but they're also impenetrable to people who don't already have the code book.

It's this abstractedness which I think marks them both. They're talking about a world that's unrecognizable to most people.

What about MoveOn?

Also tightly organized, but also hospitable to ideas from its membership. I think MoveOn is an extraordinary achievement, but it's not really a membership organization -- though maybe it's quietly in the process of becoming one. I don't know. If I get an e-mail from MoveOn, am I a member?

SDS was a much more ambitious phenomenon, maybe indecently so, but it had the hope of becoming a sort of "ideological home," as opposed to being simply action oriented. But MoveOn is absolutely brilliant for its setting.

[David__77]

55. SDS

I think he's a bit off on SDS. During its heyday, the bulk of SDS was really made up of competing communist factions: RYM, RYM II and the Progressive Labor Party. Sprinkle in a few Trots and that was it. He's romanticizing HIS experience while crapping on ANSWER. Many youth and others are getting into politics thanks to ANSWER's efforts.

[maha]

64. Yes and I'm sorry that's true.

I am so depressed now. I'm seeing all these naive young people going down the same wrong-headed, brainless path that the anti-Vietnam War movement went down (and don't tell me I'm wrong; I was there).

Believe me, I was dead set agains the War in Vietnam, just as I was dead set against the invasion of Iraq. But all that the anti-Vietnam War movement accomplished was the election of Richard Nixon and the re-election of Richard Nixon. And I fear that what ANSWER will accomplish will be keeping Bush in the White House for four more years.

[John_Shadows_1]

28. That they're hijacked the protest movement...

... for their own purposes. If you're going to have an anti-war rally, you should have one - not a free-from bitch. This march really marginalized the left again in the eyes of the media.

[diamond14]

116. welcome to DU, John_Shadows_1, did you go to the March?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Tinoire]

133. They didn't hijack the protest movement

They've been organizing rallies and protests for years in the US and around the world. My first exposure to ANSWER was in 1999 when they were protesting the unjust, illegal agression against Yugoslavia with a specific protest against Wesley Clark when he was speaking in Chicago back then.


The war against Iraq just happens to coincide nicely with their entire agenda of being anti-war, anti-occupation and anti-exploitation.

If less people cared about what the media thought and went out there, then the media couldn't marginalize it could it?

When scum like this gets riled up, I know ANSWER is doing a fine job!


http://www.protestwarrior.com/ http://www.protestwarrior.com/protest_gallery.html

[Rooktoven]

155. another place I disagree with ANSWER

Slobodan Milosevic should have had his ass kicked 4 years prior, if anything. Oh wait, it's unethical to stop genocide if the perpetrators are "leftists". What tripe.

[Rich Hunt]

29. about ANSWER

Before anyone attacks me as a "red-baiter", I will state upfront that I consider myself a democratic socialist.

However, I really wish ANSWER would be marginalized by the anti-war movement, along with NION.

ANSWER, no matter how much they try to deny it, is controlled by the WWP, which is a wacko Stalinist party. NION is the RCP. Both parties are delusional, and they think that organizing these protests is going to boost their party membership.

It is impossible to have any sort of honest relationship with these people, because they behave like cult members when they attend meetings and such. They're very unpleasant to deal with.

Some friends and I started perfectly good study or activist groups, only to see them wrecked by attempted takeovers by extreme Marxists or vanguard groups.

People can't afford to shrink from the charge of "red-baiting". These groups did a lot of damage in the sixties, and they need to be cut off now.

[diamond14]

120. reloading for Kent State: "extreme Marxists, WWP, wacko Stalinists"

look at them, "wacko Stalinist, reds, extreme Marxists, delusional'...remember what you said when the police open fire...

[Rich Hunt]

144. you know JACK SHIT about my politics

....and you and tinoire owe me an apology, because according to the political compass test, it's damned near impossible to be more radical than I am.

Front groups are ugly & toxic.

Are there no REAL activists here who have seen these groups utterly disrupt and destroy coalitions? They are NOT democratic and they want to control the agenda, not share power.

For fuck's sake, my own grandfather was a member of the Communist Party.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

YOU, my friends, are engaging in smear tactics. How ironic.

[diamond14]

168. so now, we are "ugly & toxic".....this is another good sign that

when the BEAST walked around Washington DC on Saturday, it scared a lot of these 'little minds'....radical wrong-wingers out in force attacking the anti-war protestors...

no matter how hard you try to kill the BEAST, or how many names you smear the BEAST with...it doesn't matter...

the BEAST is here now, and we can and will take OUR government back.....

[Tinoire]

137. Red-baiting? Lol!

Yeah- let's cut off all the groups denouncing the obscenities going on now because we "can't afford to shrink from the charge of "red-baiting".

How about we just cut off the people so sensitive about all these distasteful social issues ANSWER is bringing up? They can band together with the Republicans who consider ANSWER their arch-nemisis because it stands for workers rights.


Our arch nemesis International A.N.S.W.E.R. is planning a hatefest Saturday, October 25, in our nation's capital. They plan on marching past the White House right up to the Pentagon to protest American 'imperialism' and 'occupation', and a full rostrum of the Left's leaders are assembled to speak. You better believe the mainstream media is going to cover this as some sort of proof that American public opinion is turning against our mission in Iraq. We have to decide if we're going to let that happen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988642/posts

How about we cut off "those" people right now!

Your post... Spoken like a true Centrist... Compromise, compromise, compromise! Heaven forbid we offend the Freepers!

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

153. Interesting

Look I am sick and tired of the smear job against ANSWER and all the right wing talking points I am seeing at DU these days and the many posts these last two days about what will swing-voters think or people's Republican friends think! The terminology you're using in your posts denouncing ANSWER is interesting and I find it quite suspect. You have a problem with Ramsey Clark? I don't. And I'll support him and his organization until the bitter end over someone who uses words such as "red-baiting" to scare people off from it or say something this bizarre:

They behave like cult members when they attend meetings and such. They're very unpleasant to deal with.

If I mistook your point, I am sorry for mistaking it but I won't stand by quietly as people attack the main group that has had any voice and any real success at organizing against this war!

Now to accuse me of outright lying as opposed to misunderstanding how on earth a progressive would start attacking a worthwhile organization like "Not In My Name", that I DO take offense to!

The last thing I want is to see ANSWER and NION marginalized by the anti-war movement because they ARE the anti-war movement in the US right now!

I also note with interest that, per your admission here, you weren't even old enough to vote for Reagan so just how many groups have you started that were upset by these radical ideologues? How can someone who wasn't even born in the 60s come tell those of us who did what we did that these groups were the death of us and will be the death of this? Just how old are you and how much experience do you have to be preaching so mightily against these groups that some of us have worked with and followed for decades?

People can't afford to shrink from the charge of "red-baiting". These groups did a lot of damage in the sixties, and they need to be cut off now.

Just how much damage did they do in the 60s? Are you sure it wasn't the CIA infiltrating these groups and then convincing Middle America that it was the communists doing all the damage?

Have no fears about charges of red-baiting! This time the charges will be that Al-Queda is somehow involved and that has already started with the beginning, insidious posts that ANSWER supports suicide bombers. They will find a reason no matter what they have to use.

Also, btw, please spare me your disappointment- I'm not here to entertain you or anyone else.

[David__77]

41. I for one will not be swept up by anti-communism.

People calling themselves communists are in the unions and in many community organizations doing a lot of good. So what? Why should they not be in a united front? Are they lynching people? Are they racists?

I don't understand why forward-thinking people are falling for the hype in this case.

I haven't read anything from this group advocating killing US soldiers. It's just not true. Supporting Iraqis who are asserting their sovereign rights through strikes and political organizing is not advocating violence.

Yes, ANSWER is run by the WWP. Again, so what? There were unions that were run by the Communist Party. It didn't detract from the good they were doing. If we fall prey to anti-communism, we only strengthen our ideological adversaries. It betrays weakness and nothing else.

[Rich Hunt]

44. Because they're unpleasant to deal with

...and try to dominate instead of share power and listen to other people's points of view.

They try to control and make all decisions in organizing committees. Anyone who has sat on committees with these people knows that.

Also, they're not bad because they're communists - they're bad because they're a cult. I have had good experiences with people from the CPUSA.

[David__77]

54. Learn to tangle...

You're not going to get anywhere unless you learn to handle sectarians. I've had my share. Trotskyites trying to turn abortion clinic defense into a "worker guards fighting for a transitional program" and other such crap. But how you do it is not by getting caught up into this whole line of argument. ANSWER, "cult" or not, does a good job actually mobilizing people, unlike the more conventional "peace" movement. This is a good thing. These events are democratic by nature. Who listens to the speeches anyway. People carry whatever signs they want. I've personally had more trouble with "mainstream" people trying to control the message than with communists or other radicals doing that.

[Rich Hunt]

67. it's not about speeches and signs

...it's about moving into groups and committees and trying to destroy them by utterly dominating them. I don't appreciate being told by you what to do and what I need to learn - it's overbearing and rude. How do you know what I'm capable of? Do you talk to everyone like that?

Also, when the Communist Party runs unions, that is elitist.

[David__77]

71. I meant "you" in a general sense.

I don't know you. I was speaking generally. I certainly didn't mean to offend. I do find a lot of people *generally* who are very sensitive to the tactics of sectarians. I think that moving past this sensitivity is a good thing. I certainly am not speaking to your case.

[maha]

68. ANSWER doesn't do as good a job as you think they do.

In New York City, ANSWER can't put a decent rally together to save its life. What happened here is that United for Peace and Justice pulled together a couple of very successful protests in February and March, and ANSWER showed up with lots of signs and banners and pretended it was "their" protest. But they didn't organize it at all. The few rallies ANSWER tried to do on its own were busts in comparison.

ANSWER jumped in early to organize anti-war resistance, but they had limited success because, after all, it was ANSWER. I remember thinking about going to their October DC rally a year ago, but when I got on their web site and got a whif of the Marxist rhetoric (much toned down of late, I noticed) I backed out. I think a lot of people felt the same way.

So other groups, such as UPJ and Moveon, came in to do the real heavy lifting and are much more effective. UPJ was a "co-organizer" of the Washington DC protest on Saturday, and I'm willing to bet money UPJ got a lot more people there than ANSWER did.

[David__77]

72. They do in the Bay Area...

But, then again, I think the socialist left is stronger in the Bay Area than where you are. Groups like the ISO, Socialist Action and the RCP actually matter.

[maha]

74. New Yorkers remember September 11

They remember it very well. That might change the equation a bit, also.

[Tinoire]

102. Are you kidding? Every rally they've organized here has been a SUCCESS!

and a huge success at that!


I'm beginning to think maybe the Centrists should organize their own vanilla protests.

As a Leftist Democrat, ANSWER represents me just fine.

It was a thrill seeing Cynthia McKinney, Ron Kovic and Danny Glover at ANSWER's rally in San Francisco yesterday! Those are real Leftist heros!

I'm also thrilled to see Veterans for Peace, Jews Against the Occupation, Not In My Name, Jewish Voices for Peace, Military Families Speak out and all those other "fringe groups" out there.

They've been a raging success out here for the last 2 years and I'm proud to support them in their efforts.

Why all these sudden complaints? Could it be too many recent DUers are either pro-Occupation or think only the injustice in Iraq is the one that merits protesting and don't like all this noise? What's going on here?

We cannot prioritize incidents of injustice because injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere!

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. <snip>

You deplore the demonstrations taking place <snip>. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.

Martin Luther King: Letter from Birmingham Jail

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html
Martin Luther King

[maha]

112. Not IN NYC

I only know about NYC. In NYC, other organizations have done a much better jobs.

[jonnyblitz]

110. ah yes...the evil marxist rhetoric...

I read on some right wing website last winter that the founder of UFPJ, Leslie Cagan, headed up some ((((shudder)))) marxist group in the 60's so you best change your tune on that group also to remain consistent. Can't have any of those damn marxists....

[diamond14]

123. "extreme Marxists" "wacko Stalinists" AND 'Fomenting Jacobinism'

IMO, there are lots of disrupters here, loving bush* policies and doing anything and everything they can to create another Kent State Massacre against these obviously 'communist' 'bizarre' 'dangerous' people, as shown in this photo from the October 25 DC protests...

[Rich Hunt]

127. not true

Some of us are radicals who have gone to every damn protest since they were a kid, and some of us have done some actual - gasp! - organizing and "dirty work".

Get some education about activism and come back when you're ready to understand criticism with some complexity.

[bowens43]

49. I agree.

In this country , social change has always come from the fringes of the political spectrum. Communists and socialists have made many contributions to the people of the US and the world. They have always been advocates of the workers and the poor. I don't understand why some people seem to feel that they have no right to participate in a democratic society. In the US, they enjoy the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

[Q]

63. Can anyone actually show a quote about violence against...

...American troops? It seems to me that a few DUers have made this shit up in order to discredit ANSWER and the protest itself.

- This McCarthyism rhetoric is growing old real fast. If you can't actually prove that ANSWER supports violence against American troops...then shut the hell up.

[Selwynn]

89. Maha posted this above: the quote in question

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/27/antiwar/index1.html

"Unlike many Democrats, ANSWER isn't confused about where it stands on Iraq. According to an ANSWER pamphlet, "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq," "The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

I know we disagree a lot Q, but listen to me for a second - I'm not saying that this is definitive evidence of ANSWERS position, I'm only saying that it concerns me. I think calling for "unconditional support" of the anti-colonial resistance would mean supporting uncontionally all methods of such resistance. Well, that means giving our support to yesterday's bombings and murders as well as all other kinds of anti-colonial resistance.

I can't accept that.

Now, if ANSWER did not mean that, then someone will have to help me understand. But there doesn't seem to me much grey area when they call for people to give their "unconditional" support....

What do you think?

[Scott Lee]

128. What should the Iraqis do then?

"I think calling for "unconditional support" of the anti-colonial resistance would mean supporting uncontionally all methods of such resistance. Well, that means giving our support to yesterday's bombings and murders as well as all other kinds of anti-colonial resistance.

I can't accept that."

Fair enough. My next question:

What would you have them do? Invading armies aren't known for just turning around an leaving because the invaded beg and plead for them to go. Like it or not, the US has invaded and taken Iraqi sovereignty from them. They have effectively lost their country. How shall they get the invaders out?

Followup questions: If your nation were attacked and invaded, would you fight to get those invaders out?

Would you use any means at your disposal to attain that goal?

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

180. How about sticking to the subject?

How about a Son or a daughter? If not, then hush up.

How come you avoided my question and posed another emotionally loaded but irrelevent one?

I will not sit here at home and advocate the murder of my brothers and sisters. I don't give a damn what you think.

Then why did you ask me?

How shall they get the invaders out is a different question

No. It is THE question I asked you. Why can't you answer it directly?

I my nation were attacked and invaded, would I resort to terroist murder? No.

Is fighting for the liberation of one's country "terrorist" now? Goodness, you're starting to sound like a real freeper.

How about a question for you, since you're so good at asking them, aswer me this:

Right now - right in front of the many, many DUers who have son's and daughters and brothers and sisters over in Iraq through no fault of their own answer this question: are you standing up and saying "I support the murder of your sons and daughters and brothers and sisters in Iraq in the name of 'liberation'" Yes or no.

Wow, this is like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Nice try.

Here's an answer to your question. I support the Iraqis' right to fight for their freedom from an invader. I sincerely hope that the US troops are brought home before one more is killed. But that is not likely now is it? As more do get killed, don't blame me or the Iraqi people fighting for their sovereignty and freedom from an invader. Blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and any others who masterminded this crime.

I'll add this - I sure hope you're not in this country if it ever does get invaded. You're the type of person that would turn right around and work for the invader just to avoid violence. I'm glad that most of Europe during WWII didn't have your attitude. They'd still be flying the shwastika.

[Q]

162. What do I think?

- I think McCarthy AND Hoover have risen from their graves to take over your mind.

- You have interpreted 'unconditional support' to mean that support for 'bombings and murders'. That's quite a leap of faith. The fact that you can't provide evidence of any direct support of violence tears your thesis to shreds.

- In other words...you're using guilt by association to brand ANSWER and anyone assoocated with them as condoning murder.

- ANSWER and other groups organized a rally against the Iraq war and Bush* 'imperialism'. Many AMERICANS attended who had nothing to do with ANSWER....they were there to protest Bush*. That's the extent of their involvement.

- These AMERICANS wanted to express their outrage at the Bush* junta. No other groups were stepping forward to provide a forum. Why? Because there is literally no active opposition to the Bushies beyond these few groups.

[Selwynn]

173. What does "unconditional" mean then -- conditional?

- You have interpreted 'unconditional support' to mean that support for 'bombings and murders'. That's quite a leap of faith.

Isn't that what "unconditional" means?

"We're for unconditional support.. but not really.. we're just saying that."

Maybe you're right. I just need to be clear that I don't "unconditionally" support resistance fighters. I don't support murding of anyone, but especially not family members of many of us here.

[Scott Lee]

184. Which begs the question...

WHAT would you have the Iraqis do?

Let me give you a list to choose from; this might help as you seem to be tongue tied when it comes to answering this germinal question. Should they:

Ask the US soldiers politely to go home?

Say nasty things about US soldiers on the internet?

Start an email campaign sent to the White House?

Slap, kick, punch soldiers but stop before the soldiers really get hurt?

Hold a bake sale?

Sit and wait for the Bush White House to have a change of heart?

Turn the other cheek and say to Russia or China "Invade us again, Ike - and this time put some STANK on it!"?

[diamond14]

87. Kent State coming up: 'communists' 'lyching' 'preying on us'

their not REAL Americans...shoot....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. The "authorities" tried to link Vietnam anti-war activities to Communist..

...organizations, too.

[maha]

91. Yes, I remember.

See, this is what we're falling into. MOST of us who protested the war in Vietnam were not interested in Communism or supporting North Vietnam or any such thing. However, there WERE some small but very active factions involved in the anti-war movement who were sympathetic to communism, and the Nixon people were able to use this to tar all of us with the same brush. (Yes, some of these people were plants of the Nixon people, but not all.)

As I remember, you could NOT stage a peace march without some jerk whipping out a North Vietnamese flag, and of course a photo of the jerk and his flag would be on the front page of the newspapers the next day, and Middle America would promptly dismiss the entire anti-war movement as dupes of the Communists.

The result was that Nixon was relected in 1972.

[LeahMira]

93. Freeps and ANSWER...

I don't SEE any propaganda from them supporting communism and marxism, yet the freeks in freeptown are ALLLLLL in a tizzy, and for the first time yesterday, came across a mindless twit online who was CONVINCED they're inciting communism.

The Freepers don't understand the difference between Communism, Socialism, and Stalinism for one thing. They also don't get the difference between Communism and Fascism. To a Freeper, all these -isms are different names for the same thing... and they are convinced that they are opposed to all of them.

ANSWER has an internet and e-mail capability that the Freepers would just about die for. Whenever there's a violation of human rights anywhere in the world, ANSWER is one group that gets the word out to individuals and to other human rights groups. Things can't be swept under the carpet due to distance or censorship because the internet is such a powerful tool. Just think of the Chiapas network! ANSWER is definitely a threat to those who have depended on secrecy to carry out their purposes, and because of that the dictators and fascists will always try to limit its effectiveness. I don't agree with everything on the ANSWER website, but I think we are all fools if we let it be undermined by the Freeper types.

[ArkDem]

98. The criticism of A.N.S.W.E.R from the right wingers

is that A.N.S.W.E.R's http://www.internationalanswer.org/ leadership is made up of activists from The Workers World Party http://www.workers.org/.

Since neither site lists it's leaders by name I have no idea.

[Tinoire]

104. OMG- The Workers World Party!

That of course, lol, would be anathema to all those who put corporate interests above those of the workers.

Well color me on the workers' side ;)

Color me on the same side as this International Movement that's marching in places like Rome, Paris, and Brussels fighting wars and the exploitation of people because the two go hand in hand.

Oh yes baby! Color me Left! :)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Rich Hunt]

109. It is NOT a "worker's party"

As a person of working-class background, these fake middle-class parties annoy the crap out of me.

They do not consist of real working-class people - they came from the middle-class new left of the sixties.

[Tinoire]

141. Really? I'll simply beg to differ and believe my "lying" eyes. n/t

[Rich Hunt]

145. have you ever met any WWP people?

Where I live, there are, like, TWO of them.

I live in a working-class community. I never see them do anything with labor.

Please stop being so knee-jerk and irrational.

[jonnyblitz]

161. isnt that steretyping when you base the actions of a whole group

on like 2 people that you happen to know? I know some ANSWER people who are very active in unions and organizing but I am not going to make a sweeping generalization one way or the other on the group as a whole nationwide.

[Tinoire]

164. Two?! Sheesh... So you know two people and then generalize?

You might consider getting away from that microcosm you live in and get a larger sample size before uttering these sweeping pronunciations!

Come out here to California and see ALL the work that these guys are doing with Labor!

You really should consider not being so knee-jerk and irrational as to make sweeping generalizations based on your limited experience with 2 people.

Then you advance that they're not doing anything with Labor?! Come on out here! Come on out here to California and see who's working with the ILWU here. Come meet my good friend Clarence Thomas, ILWU and USLAW participant in the international labor delegation that just returned from Iraq so he can set you straight!

As such a big friend of labor, do you know anything about the assault against the longshore workers here a few months ago? Do you know who's been fighting with them? Yep, you guessed it.

[Darranar]

183. Sadly enough...

this "Worker's World Party" supported the Tianemmen Square massacre and thinks that North Korea and China are good examples of socialism.

I don't like ANSWER much; I think they do a great job planning an executing rallies, but their association with such radical, hypocritical groups bothers me greatly.

[Tinoire]

185. Do you have a reputable source for that Darranar?

I would much appreciate it. Thanks

[Darranar]

187. Here:

http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/r_becker0114.html

Right from the organization.

[Tinoire]

186. Do you have a reputable source for that Darranar?

I would much appreciate it. Thanks

[Rich Hunt]

119. It IS WWP

Where I live, all of the ANSWER organizers are also WWP people, just as all NION organizers are RCP people.

This is what is known as a "front group".

[Paschall]

100. For Plaid Adder, a re-post

Plaid Adder started a thread with a thoughtful comment on this subject that has been locked. I want to re-post it here because I think it deserves reading (like all of Plaid's work).

<quote> For the ANSWER bashers

You know what?

I went on my first march in DC a year ago yesterday and I went despite the fact that they were pulling the same crap about ANSWER out then that they are now. And why did I go? Because I wanted to do something about this fucking mess and ANSWER had a demo set up and was chartering buses. It's that fucking simple.

UFPJ has better mainstream support and I was glad to see they were co-sponsoring the march and rally this year. But UFPJ is an umbrella group for a huge number of organizations and they seem to be very focused on NYC. Apart from that big rally in NY on Feb. 15, which admittedly was an amazing event, they have not done much on the national-protest front. ANSWER has been doing a better job organizing and getting the word out for local and national demonstrations, and that's why people show up.

You don't want to associate with the bad communist lefties or catch pro-Palestinian cooties? Fine. START YOUR OWN NATIONAL PROTEST NETWORK. Centrists and moderate liberals all over the country will be thrilled to death. So will I. I am already fed up with seeing the same 2000 people at all the Chicago protests and the same 12 organizations at the national ones. If any of this is going to have a real impact, we will have to get millions of people moving, not just 100,000. But you know what, just ranting about how 'out there' and 'bizarre' ANSWER is and thanking your stars that you have never besmirched yourself by associating with them is not going to make anything happen, apart from a lot of flame wars.

I shouldn't even be posting this, as it is not liable to be constructive, but dammit, I'm pissed off. You go to all the trouble to go down there and try to keep dissent alive in this country only to come back here and get picked apart for it. Really renews your faith in the power of democracy.

Plaid Adder </quote>

Thanks, Plaid. :thumbsup:

[screembloodymurder]

159. I agree.

I really don't care who sponsored or co-sponsored. Wasn't there for that.

[Rich Hunt]

114. The WWP, from a left perspective

Workers World Party: The Workers World Party was founded by Sam Marcy in 1959 when he left the Socialist Workers Party. Over time, Marcy's political ideology had warped from Trotskyism to an unusual form of Stalinism. The WWP claimed that it supported the rights of workers, but supported the overthrow of workers by the Soviet Union in places like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland. The Workers World Party nominated its first candidate for office in 1980. Though the WWP is small, its membership is highly dedicated and can accomplish much. In 1996, the WWP succeeded in capturing a ballot spot in California which led to WWP Presidential candidate Monica Moorehead getting over 29,000 votes (mainly from California) in 1996. Moorehead once again ran for President in 2000 under the WWP ballot, but this time received less than 5,000 votes. The WWP has created a number of front organizations, including the International Action Center (which has been involved in the anti-globalization demonstrations) and the newly-formed ANSWER (an anti-war group). On May 10, FBI Director Louis Freeh named the WWP as a "domestic terrorist group" without providing any evidence, paving the way for future attacks on civil liberties on groups for merely having different opinions than the mainstream. This has brought sympathy from many leftists toward the WWP. However, the WWP continues to do things which will turn leftists away from them, including backing the Kimist dictators of North Korea and supporting the efforts of the anti-Semitic, chauvinistic Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP). Overall, Workers World is one of the most authoritarian groups on the Left today. See the number of votes the WWP received in Presidential elections.

http://www.nobamn.com/groups.html

See also this article about working with sectarian groups:

Cadre organizations are built along strict lines of obedience to the group's ideology, strategy and tactics. They are sects with particular features involving hierarchical structures and organizational practices rooted in Leninism. Often individual cadre members are obligated to articulate a specific line or script (or "frame" in sociological jargon) regarding a variety of topics.

One way to enforce a single ideological line or a specific strategy or tactic is to use a process called "democratic centralism." Under democratic centralism, cadres are expected to engage in a frank discussion and debate internally with other cadres and the group's leadership. However, once a specific position is arrived at, cadres are expected to support the decision, and refrain from any disagreement with or criticisms of the "line" with persons or groups outside of the cadre organization. When people talk about "The Party Line," they mean the line the cadre group members are bound to uphold in public.


http://resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1999/12/berlet.html

...and another article critical of ANSWER, also from a left perspective:

http://www.agrnews.org/issues/220/commentary.html

[KFC]

135. "So I notice LOTS of hate spewed towards Bush, does that mean"

he's doing a lot RIGHT?

Um, probably not. I guess I just don't follow your logic.

[John_H]

166. I'll bet my 201K that

Transgendered Cuban Mumias for the 5 Palistinian Nuns ain't gonna be the group that gets rid of Chimpy or ends the war. Both of those will be done by that guy cutting his grass accross the street. Whether or not you think all those folks help that guy is your call, I guess.

Now a fifteen-seconds-of-thought-kinda guy'll say Neighbor Bob can't be reached. But history says he gets reached a lot, and not a jell of a lot is going to get done until he does. Ve'etnam ended right quick when middle america got persuaded.

[jonnyblitz]

170. thats for defining who the people that matter are for us...

and that people that DON'T matter. How inclusive of you.

[TimeLord]

171. I believe ANSWER to be a noble exercise in

acting as a "formidable" foe, in our behalf, to those who would dishonor this country and all it stands for, for temptations of corporate greed, corporate hegemeny, and corporate facism at the expense of the American people. I detest those, who in the name of patriotism and freedom, would sell out Americans so they can line their respective pockets from the pot of the spoils of war of countries that our government, strangled by a few, and against the wishes of most of us, that they choose to occupy. I especially detest those who would dare to lie to us to go about these means.

Is ANSWER perfect? I would suspect not, however, it is important to remember that working as a united front, they are indeed a force to be wreckened with. They are definitely a force that is intent on protecting the progressive idea of how America should be and for that, they have my utmost respect.

[laura888]

175. Most of those who bash ANSWER are pro-Israel...

Many of those who post their criticisms want to discredit anything that ANSWER does, even if helpful to the cause, because of ANSWER's sympathy for the palestinian cause.

[Scott Lee]

181. Irrational hatred of Palestinians

Many of those who post their criticisms want to discredit anything that ANSWER does, even if helpful to the cause, because of ANSWER's sympathy for the palestinian cause.

You noticed that too, huh.

I got into a scuffle once with a self described "liberal democrat" who fell to pieces when she found out I supported the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland and freedom from Israeli mistreatment. You should have heard this woman dissemble and scream. As I found out more about her, it came to light that she is a native South African (White). I have noticed a rabid pro-Israeli attitude among many White South Afrikaaners and I have to wonder if it has anything to do with colonialist thinking.

[ShaneGR]

182. Double LOL

What if I'm pro both sides?

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.