<< BIRD VIRUS INCURABLE ~ MAIN ~ TASER ME ELMO >>
NOT ANTI-WAR; JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE
Antony Loewenstein: “The defeat of America and its allies in Iraq is vital ...”
I guess that’s the last we’ll hear from Lowy. He’ll be off to join the heroic Iraqi resistance. That is, unless he’s some kind of ... chickenhawk.
UPDATE. At the link above, Currency Lad comments:
A member of my family is serving in Iraq. Lowenstein wants him to be killed. I’d love to see him say that to the person concerned. Or that person’s spouse. Or his mates in uniform.
I’d settle for him saying it to his recruiter in Syria.
Anyone know where Lowy lives? Get a couple of beefy RWDBs to dress up in suits and dark glasses, and knock on his door and say, “Mr Antony Loewenstein? We’re from (pause) a federal agency. Could you confirm, for the tape recorder, that you wrote online that the defeat of America and Australia in Iraq is vital?
Thank you. On the day that the new counter-terrorism Act is proclaimed, please present yourself at the nearest office of the Australian Federal Police. A legal aid solicitor will be available. Thank you for your time. Have a good day.”
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 26 at 09:01 AM • permalinkAnthony Loewenstein has already shown himself to a petty, resentful little loser who despises the idea of real democracy, or freedom for the unwashed masses, or anything at all about his fellow man. Who cares what he has to say? Except for the Islamic terrorists he loves so much, of course. Maybe when they achieve their perfect Islamic world, they’ll give him a break and use a sharper knife when they come for his head.
... the Iraq quagmire has made us a greater terrorist target and has created the perfect breeding ground for Islamists with a grievance against the West and its arrogance. The defeat of America and its allies in Iraq is vital to ensure similiar acts are not carried out again.
If we are not defeated in Iraq, the terrorists will get really mad at us.
If we are defeated, that will teach us not to upset them again.
One word for you, Lowenstein - boo!
If Antoine thinks that the way to peace is to defeat the allies, and joins the insurgency himself, then he’s a ninja dove. If he declines to fight along side of his terrorist pals, then he’s just a chicken, pure and simple. My own view is that he’s a thoroughbred specimen of the Raphus cuculatus, also known as the Didus ineptus, or Dodo.
Seriously, though, I think a fair argument can be made that he and his ilk are already fighting along side of the terrorists, not with AK47’s, of course, but with their propaganda.
Seriously, though, I think a fair argument can be made that he and his ilk are already fighting along side of the terrorists, not with AK47’s, of course, but with their propaganda.
Paco, that’s exactly what they are doing. They won’t admit it, because they don’t accept that if you are for something, you are against something else.
Instead, Lowy and his idiot brethern fancy themselves as “neutral”, because it soothes their conscience. After all, if Lowy thinks that the defeat of the Coalition is “vital”, he can’t admit that said defeat would result only in continued blood baths for Iraq….since the fool claims to be for peace, when Al Quaeda clearly is not.
Denial and delusion by a fool. His upcoming book will likely be little more than birdcage liner in a few years—it’s a pity that trees have to die for his ego.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 26 at 01:42 PM • permalinkExcuse me, I should have said:
...it’s a pity that Coalition soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, and trees have to die for his ego.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 26 at 01:52 PM • permalinkI take it Loewenstein opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, the liberation of East Timor, the use of coalition forces in Bosnia, etc. I mean, if he didn’t he would have served in those conflicts, right? Surely he wouldn’t stand by while others died in a war he supported, would he?
P.S. The chickenhawk argument is bogus for all the reasons expressed before and elsewhere, but it’s astonishing how often moonbats miss the hypocrisy of their own position.
P.P.S. If the moonbat opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, there’s no point in taking him seriously on the subject anyway.
The biggest “chickenhawk” in American history would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, who never served in the military but who involved the USA in the greatsest war in history on the footling basis that the Nazis were a long-term threat to the security of the USA and its democratic political institutions.
Abe Lincoln would have to be considered one too. His short, undistinguished service in an Indian War was far less impressive, and less dangerous, than Dubya’s service in the Air National Guard, yet he led the country into a great war to preserve the Union and free the slaves. How dare he?
If I’m a “chickenhawk”, I consider that I’m in good company. Better company, certainly, than the people who are against defending the USA and the West against the Islamist jihadi terrorists.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 10 26 at 06:24 PM • permalinkIf Flavius Antonius did actually go to Syria or Iraq, he would be living down to the traditions of his distinguished ancestor…
Having killed his own troops, Flavius Joseph joined the Romans invading Israel. He would drive a chariot around the walls of beseiged cities, including the one sheltering his own wife and family, calling out praise of the Romans and inviting the defenders to surrender.
of course, those premature Zionists lobbed the occasional arrow or catapult stone at Flavius Josephus, so that might be a little too hard-core for his puling descendant.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 26 at 08:38 PM • permalinkI endorse nothing more than a good “defeating” for Mr Lowenstein.
Apparently to be “defeated” isn’t that bad.
Mushtaq Heidleberg even had the nerve to suggest I enlist in the army if I really backed the troops! Too late Mushy, I did that in 1980. Now it’s his turn to have the stones to enlist as a human shield.
To which he replied:
“OK Gibbo, I hear your point.I just hope you apply this logic consistently. For example, encouraging war cheerleaders to take arms and get their butts over to Iraq.
I suggest that you immediately go to tim blair’s site and make the suggestion. I’m sure that you’ll be warmly received”
Well folks, anyone willing to admit to being an active or ex-active serviceman here besides me?
Follow the link at the top of this post to Ants place and tell Mushy and Ant what you really think.
F**cking sh*tbags.
Whoops, the link at the top of this post is to J.F. Becks.
The link you want is here.What a fucking piece of shit! Roll on the anti-terror laws to roll up pricks like him.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2005 10 27 at 04:38 AM • permalinkYeah Gibbo,
20+ years in service. Bosnia and Afghanistan. Kiss my a$$, Antony…
Posted by Major John on 2005 10 27 at 05:07 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Isnt it interesting that those who love to label civilian supporters of the war as chickenhawks have never had to experience any torture, threat of mistreatment or whatever at the hands of Saddam’s regime, yet the logical conclusion to their postion is that other people would still be being tortured etc as he would still be in power today.
I am not going to suggest that they support Saddam in intent, but the do support him in effect.
If I am a chickenhawk because I support the war without fighting in it, they too are chickenhawks for opposing the war without ever having suffered at the hands of Saddam’s regime.
The reality is that it is not a requirement to have served in Iraq* in order to have a legitimate opinion supporting the war, just as it is not a requirement to have suffered at the hands of Saddam’s regime in order to have a legitimate opinion opposing it.
The entire chickenhawk talking point is nothing more than a cheap rhetorical slur to try and slander the people who support the war, rather than argure the facts.
* It is interesting to note that when leftists come across someone who has served in Iraq, and who also supports the war, as the vast majority of currently serving women/men do, they simply dismiss this person as having been manipulated, or ignorant, or somesuch.