Some Research on the "Right-Wing" Groups

I've been doing some reading on what mainstream media sources are calling "Right-Wing" and "Fascist" groups.  I'm NOT persuaded that the media understand either term, given that they seem to be using them to smear the groups as proto-Nazi "hate" groups.

Hate is a strong word.  It NEVER is applied to Islamicist groups, although they are quite vocal about their hatred of Jews and Christians, often using terms that are vicious, bigoted, and compare those people to apes, slaves, and sub-humans.  At best.

It is common to hear terms that are the Arabic equivalent of the N-word, applied to blacks.

Here's one of the stories that has been cited as a reason for the popularity of the English Defense League (EDL) - understand, I am NOT supporting them, nor am I in favor of their aims.  What I am trying to do is go beyond the vilification of them, en masse, to understand that the truth about their rise, and the reasons for it, may lie in that gray area called reality.  If, in fact, native Brits have been treated as 2nd-class people in their own country, you could certainly understand why they might be resentful about it.  And if that less-favored treatment only extends to the working-classes, and not the elites, it does seem to be doubly unfair.

Here's a video of a Christian church, whose graveyard is being dug up for a mosque.  The real question is, why is this acceptable?  Given the strong feeling in the Christian community about leaving the dead in peace in their graves, it does seem to be unnecessarily provocative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rP9K1lj9h0

Here's another provocation - a parade for English returning soldiers - they are being abused by militants.  Note, there is NO adverse response to shouting, pushing, and vile comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB3qnHmfaLg&feature=related

Note the aggressive actions and postures of these marchers, who push and shove against the Bobbies.  Note, also, that they are using their Pro-Palestinian scarves to disguise their identities.

This is one that has gotten a LOT of attention by the EDL.  Protesting Muslims are burning a giant poppy, symbol of respect for the war dead.  This is a symbol that dates back to WWI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yBc-6Lu_B0

No-Go Zones?  These are areas that are NOT places where the Natives are tolerated.

http://youtu.be/E0BbWmPKCyk

Keep listening, when you watch different Youtube videos, for certain Arabic words to keep returning:

• These are Egyptian:


• kalb or kalba - bitch


• gazmaa - shoe (any reference, in the absence of other proof, should be taken to be an insult)


• kuss unmak - your mother's - um - female part - REAL insulting


• kaddaab - liar - it is REALLY insulting to call someone this


• Haraami [pl.] Haraamiyya - thief - don't forget, these are the people who think it's acceptable to cut off the hand of one


• saafil [pl.] safala - base, loathsome


• More generally Arabic insults


• sharmouta - whore - VERY common insult


•  kuffir or kuffar - infidel - literally, one who rejects Islam.  Has evolved into a slur; often coupled with "dirty" to imply that such a base person has sprung from a debased woman's female parts - a GRAVE insult, as they see it.  Someone so designated is considered to be beneath civilized contact, and deserving of any curse, punishment, cruelty, and lack of respect that the curser deems OK.


• From Wikipedia:


• Abid (Arabic: عبد‎, plural Abeed عبيد or El Abeed العبيد) is a derogatory term meaning "slave" used mainly in Arab countries and is usually applied as an insult toBlack people to invoke stereotypes. 


• The name has been explained as being an allusion to the submission that Muslims owe to Allah. Meyer dismisses this as "efforts by propagandists" to "explain the term away" that are "at the least, disingenuous".^[1]

So, are they choir boys in the EDL?  No.  But, neither should their outrage be ignored.

Neither should mothers - this one the wife of a serving soldier -  be threatened with loss of their children for expressing "unacceptable" thoughts about politics.

I'd like the rhetoric to tone down - on ALL sides.  I'd like all sides to realize that they are NOT the totally innocent victim of "Hate Groups", but may be digging into intolerant positions, based on half-understood "truths".  No single person or group holds revealed truth, or is beyond criticism.  Use of government to suppress criticism is unacceptable.  Labeling of your opponents as RACIST, in the absence of legal proof, is unacceptable.

What Constitutes a "Crime" Under Rules of Engagement?

Armed forces in the field are held to a high standard of conduct.  If they see an enemy combatant, they have to weigh the cost of letting him get away, versus the potential for civilian (that is, those not directly involved in the war and wearing a uniform - no matter what aid they give to their soldiers on their side) harm.

 

The Army Times had a recent post on a soldier involved in just that kind of situation - that soldier may end up disciplined for what, at worst, was a difference in opinion in a stress situation.  In a way, he is lucky - other soldiers have faced courtmartials, and potential prison time for "offenses" no greater.

 

Another blog goes into some detail about the daily experiences of soldiers, who risk their lives to avoid killing civilians.

 

Remember when the Anti-War crowd fought to get pictures of dead soldiers' coffins on the evening news - oh, yeah, that was when BUSH was president.



It's different now - the above pictures aren't on display, although the men and women are just as dead, in the same war.

 

And what of our Commander-in-Chief?

 

The Rules don't appear to apply to him.

 

Although President Obama has only served 39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more then 10-year-old war in Afghanistan have occurred on his watch.

Through April 30, the Defense Department had reported that 1,844 U.S. military personnel have been killed in and around Afghanistan while deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom, which was launched in October 2001 after al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

According to CNSNews.com’s comprehensive database on Afghan war casualties, at least 1,275 of the 1,844 U.S. troops killed in Operation Enduring Freedom have been killed since Jan. 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as president.

 

Go here for the full story - and check the comments - some are saying that those figures may be low, due to playing games with the stats.

 

Here's some background on the drone strikes.

 

President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute.

 

Drone strikes aren't precision bombing - in most cases, all males in the vicinity are killed or injured.  And, that seems to be OK with the Prez.

 

“The president apparently reacted quite strongly to a bad strike, an errant strike in Pakistan very early in the first days of his presidency, and has kept pressing the agencies involved to minimize civilian casualties,” Shane said. “But there’s also been some dispute over the way civilian casualties are counted. The CIA often counts able-bodied males, military-age males who are killed in strikes as militants, unless they have concrete evidence to sort of prove them innocent, and some folks at the State Department and elsewhere have questioned that kind of a process.”

The Times article goes on to explain that President Obama is incredibly instrumental when it comes to targeted drone strikes and oversees counterterrorism operations involving the unmanned aerial aircraft so much so that he says who can and can’t be killed. To Newshour, Shane said, “Instead of wanting deniability and wanting to keep at a distance from this lethal program, he actually wanted to be very much part of it.” According to that Times’ report, it now makes a lot of sense why the commander-in-chief has never condemned the continuing strikes.

Speaking to an international audience during a virtual townhall earlier this year, President Obama said that drones had"not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.” But when the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released the findings of a drone strike stud last year, the UK-based agency said , that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the American authorities were actually reporting: between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

 

The NY Times has another take on the story, but one that also lays out clearly Obama's complicity in the deaths.

 

BTW, here is a detailed explanation of the ROE for Iraq (haven't found the Afghan ones yet - I believe that the revisions haven't had wide circulation).  The original document was from the Wilileaks site.

 

How insane are these rules?  According to this post, George Zimmerman had more cover under the law to shoot Trevor Martin than many of our troops - who are pursuing men who are trying to kill them - have.

In Honor of Our Forefathers

...and All Patriots who choose to stand with them, against tyranny.

Why was THIS The Only Real Revolution?

we all know how the Sons of Liberty reacted to a two-cent tax on tea. They took their rights — their liberty — seriously. They knew that when a tyrant gets his foot in the door, the rest of the beast is sure to follow. As George Washington said in 1774, “The crisis is arrived when we must assert our rights or submit to every imposition which can be heaped upon us, till custom and use shall make us . . . slaves.”

How different are we?

Imagine that men from that era were observing us today. They would see that we send up to 50% of our income to different levels of government, and we are told that this is not sufficient —  that our duty is to sacrifice more. (Consider this shocking fact: the colonists paid approximately 1% of their incomes in taxes.) They would see an incredible number of regulations on all types of domestic and foreign commerce. They would see an immense army of bureaucrats to enforce the regulations and another army of real soldiers residing more or less permanently in other countries. It would be clear to them that Jefferson’s statement is unfortunately still true that “even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny.”

It's quite a tradition that we Americans have to live up to.

Freedom Costs - and it cost THEM dearly.

To Our Nation - Happy Birthday!

To Our Armed Forces - Please Take Care.

To All Citizens - Live Up to Their Example!