Anti-Military Protesters to ‘Imprison’ Recruiters

Filed under: Military, United States — Michael van der Galien on March 12, 2008 @ 3:30 pm CET

Although Charles Johnson refers to the far-left activists who plan to storm a military recruiting office and imprison the recruiters in a “movable cage.” as “anti-war loons,” I think that it’s safe to call these people “anti-military loons.” Jason Steck took some heat yesterday for writing that all too many anti-war activists are in essence also anti-military, but this ‘protest’ proves that he’s right.

Here’s the plan:

On Wednesday, March 19, POG will be holding a torch-lit march to a modern day castle of abominations—our local military recruiting station. If the station remains open, we intend to evict it and everything inside of it, occupy the location, and transform it into something useful for the community. We’ll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors.

“something useful for the community.” Note that the military isn’t considered to be useful by these individuals.

But not only are they useless, they’re even dangerous to normal Americans: “no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors.”

Michelle Malkin describes to the long history of anti-military activities by far-left activists. It seems that they’re becoming increasingly desperate and increasingly aggressive. As she writes at Townhall, this isn’t a war against the war, this is a war against military recruiters and, thus, a war against the military.

I’m with John Hawkins who writes: “Those are not the actions of people who support the troops, patriots, or even decent people.” The question now is whether liberals in general will speak out about these protests, or whether they’ll accept it. John condemns all American liberals and anti-military, I’m not willing to do so, all the more so because I know some liberals who are actually very strongly pro-military (and often hawkish in their politics).

But one wonders why it is that liberal bloggers aren’t writing anything about this matter.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.

1 Jay_C

March 12, 2008 @ 5:58 pm CET

I agree that some are anti-military, but not the majority. The problem, in my alternate but equal opinion, is that a vocal minority of anti-war, anti-military folks are drowning out the silent majority of anti-war, pro military folks. I’ll give you that "what is heard" (even being from the minority), is what forms perception. But the thing is, perception although convenient to use when supporting an argument, is not fact. Basing a logical argument on a premise coming from perception or personal opinion, and not fact, may make your line of reasoning correct but unless it is based on fact, it doesn’t make that argument correct. I would think we would need a Sociologist to take the time to perform a study, analyze the data, and present the results to us to get a real answer to who is right. As far as your analysis of the post, I agree in that some do seem to beleive that the military isn’t considered to be useful by these individuals, however, it doesn’t prove your argument, any more than it does mine.

2 john hawkins

March 15, 2008 @ 8:00 am CET

[…] not religious, you’ll be doing the bare minimum to get in the pearly gates? Dowww.uncorrelated.comAnti-Military Protesters to ???Imprison?? Recruiters - PoliGazetteI??m with John Hawkins who writes: ???Those are not the actions of people who support the troops, […]

3 michelle malkin

March 18, 2008 @ 3:59 am CET

[…] Christian group whose leaders have openly questioned Israel’s right to ethunderpigblog.blogspot.comAnti-Military Protesters to ???Imprison?? Recruiters - PoliGazetteMichelle Malkin describes to the long history of anti-military activities by far-left activists. It […]