National Guardsman Attacked, Called "Babykiller"
August 31st, 2006 | by Bodacious |I found this at Michelle Malkin’s website today. The post talks about a national guardsman in Parkland, Washington who was attacked by four people, called the soldier a “baby killer,” and was left for dead.
The article doesn’t expressly say the attackers were anit-war activists, but how much convincing do you need?
This isn’t an isolated incident either. Michelle’s post links to other anti-military incidents as well, including an activist sentenced to 5 years in prison for attacking an army recruiting station, soldier beatings in Seattle. Not included in her links are other incidents in California where the ROTC HQ was vandalized on a college campus and a recovering soldier at Walter Reed Medical Center was sent a card that told him to die. (I am too busy to look up the links, but if you want them just ask)
I will admit the anti-troop, anti-military wing of the democratic party is only a small minority, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that movement is gaining strength. Is the left going to speak out against these crimes?
7 Responses to “National Guardsman Attacked, Called "Babykiller"”
By Curious Texan on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I will admit the anti-troop, anti-military wing of the democratic party is only a small minority, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that movement is gaining strength. Is the left going to speak out against these crimes?
And Bo, I will admit the anti-Christian, anti-West wing of Islam is only a small minority, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that movement is gaining strength. Are moderate Muslims going to speak out against these crimes?
I wouldn’t bet on it in either case. As far as the Left is concerned, the Democrats are too dependent on the money of George Soros and the zeal of the “nutroots” (e.g. Daily KOS, moveon.org, etc.) to distant themselves from these types.
So moderate Muslims insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and Democrats insist they support the troops, but neither is particularly vocal in their denunciation of extremists in their midst.
By Celtictexan on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
–I will admit the anti-troop, anti-military wing of the democratic party is only a small minority, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that movement is gaining strength. Is the left going to speak out against these crimes?–
Well me always being the pessimist, would say the anti military wing of the demo’s is very large. I would say the same about Islam and its anti west/christian/judaism stance. The recent forced conversion of the kidnapped reporters is all I need to hear to tell me what is waiting for us all if we fail to confront Islam because of liberal anti military philosophy.
By Curious Texan on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Celtictexan,
As far as the Democrats are concerned, you may be right. I’d say that if Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the senate race in Connecticut, you’re definitely right.
But that may not necessarily be something to be pessimistic about. If pro-security Democrats are marginalized, the end result could be the marginalization of the Democrat Party among the voting populace at large. I know you’re old enough to remember how anti-war the Democrats were in ‘72 when they nominated McGovern, only to lose 49 states in the general election (Taxachusetts being the lone hold-out).
As for extremist Muslims, I guess “small minority” is a relative thing. Some people would say that 1% is a small minority, but out of 1.1 billion Muslims worldwide, that’s 1.1 million crazed fanatics out to kill as many infidels as they can. Hardly a trifling matter, IMHO.
By Celtictexan on Sep 2, 2006 | Reply
where did all that crap come from? Is clint talking in code again?
By Curious Texan on Sep 20, 2006 | Reply
swlrdy fjlxvxplnq nvmzrcabqu …
You gotta love the Lamont supporters. They wait nearly three weeks to post a comment, and when they finally do, it’s in Czech!