Anti-Military Protesters to ‘Imprison’ Recruiters
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.
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.