IVAW release, and Mother Jones

| July 28, 2011 | 14 Comments

First, the IVAW release:

IVAW learned this morning that PFC Naser Abdo was arrested yesterday in Killeen, TX, and is being investigated by the FBI on charges of possessing firearms and bomb-making materials.

Abdo is not now and has never been a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

In August 2010, IVAW supported his application for Conscientious Objector status to reflect our commitment to protecting G.I. Rights for all service members and access to a fair C.O. application process in accordance with Army Regulation 600-43 and DoD Directive 1300.06. In October, IVAW publicized a statement by Abdo condemning Islamophobia. Finally, in November 2010, Abdo offered his support at Ft. Campbell to SPC Jeff Hanks, whose own battle with combat-related trauma earned him the support of IVAW’s Operation Recovery Campaign.

IVAW has not been in contact with Naser Abdo since that time.

As we await additional information on the details of Abdo’s arrest, IVAW reiterates its commitment to non-violence, as outlined in our 2009 Resolution on Non-Violent and Peaceful Actions. Per the organization’s mission, IVAW supports the health and safety of all American troops, and never condones the threat or use of violence against military or civilian establishments or individuals.

Same defense they used with Rick Duncan Strandlof, and still crap. But the thing I take contention with is the “IVAW has not been in contact with Naser Abdo since that time.”

That’s crap. His Facebook page was linked to a TON of IVAW members, and there was free discussion back and forth. So, I guess maybe the dude never called the home office, but that is crap. Besides, his lawyer for the porn charges was the same lawyer that does all the IVAW cases. So really? We’re to believe there was no contact at all? Or just official contact?

Also, Mother Jones linked to us, and it is every bit as you might expect, the money shot is:

And This Ain’t Hell certainly has an axe to grind when it comes to Muslims, the military, and antiwar groups.

Good job throwing the “Islamaphobia” charge in there. Look Dick, I bet I’ve given more money to Muslims than you have, because I was buying little kids shoes, shampoo, coloring books, coats etc the entire time I was deployed. In fact. every chance I got to take out money, I bought more stuff for the kids. So take your Muslim bating bullshit and shove it up your ass. As a commenter made clear, there are plenty of Muslims we served beside. I can name about 10 off the top of my head, and 9 of them never caused me any anxiety or other, and I lived with them. One was a shitbag (SGT Hawk, FO) who claimed to be a Muslim to avoid guard duty during Ramadan in Bosnia, and then proceeded to get drunk in Budapest and get a Tattoo that I don’t feel comfortable sharing, but which made clear just how holy he was. The others were great soldiers, no more or less so because of or despite of their holy beliefs.

Oh, also:

Vasquez acknowledged that the arrest might drive conservatives to place greater scrutiny on the anti-war organization. “No matter what we say, whether we have been combat veterans or not, there’s going to be folks that are just opposed to us on principle,” he said.

Another load of crap. I have many friends who are against the war, and as pointed out innumerable times, I am friends with even some IVAW members. (AS you know, and a few others.) I don’t give a shit what someone’s view is on the war, it is when it crosses over into maligning those of us who served honorably that I get a case of the ass. The ones we like over there are not the problem, it is turds like Montalvan who lies about his service, Geoff Millard who lies about his CIB, Rappenhagen who lies every time he speaks about DU or nearly any other topic, Knappenberger and DeWald who threatened to kill us….do I need to go on?

Category: Politics

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cedo Alteram says:

    They linked to you? HAHA, Mov’en on up in the world!

  2. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Didn’t you get the memo Jonn? You’re a right wing military blogger. You HAVE to hate Muslims, them be the rules.

  3. Spade says:

    “and never condones the threat or use of violence against military or civilian establishments or individuals.”

    The organization doesn’t condone it. Just some of their members and friends. Totally different thing.

  4. NotSoOldMarine says:

    re #3

    Hey man, if it’s not on the website, under “our Mission” then the organization doesn’t stand for it. Doesn’t matter what the rank and file advocate, support and preach, if it isn’t on the website then it’s plausibility deniable :)

  5. Eleven_Bravo says:

    Ok I tossed in my 2 cents at Mother Jones. If you folks are Muslim hating Islamophobes I don’t even wanna think about what I would qualify as.

  6. Kanani says:

    That IS a bunch of crap.
    I know someone who was a CO during the Vietnam War. He had to go before the draft board BEFORE the chance that his number would even come up. He went through several reviews, interviews, and in-depth evaluations. Anyway, my point is that it wasn’t easy to get that status then. You got raked over the coals. Has this changed? If so, it would seem that anyone claiming to not want to shoot a gun could get it –even if they really didn’t believe in pacifism. That’s what seems to be the case here. He wasn’t really into peace. He just saw this war as one against Muslims in general, which is entirely missing the mark. It’s against terrorism, not muslims. The plus is that scores of women and girls are going to school, and Afghanistan has the lowest level of violence in 30 years (Human Rights Watch).

    The issue I have is supporting someone who volunteers, then “discovers” they are CO in the middle of their service. It just seems ass backwards, like the person had very few convictions going in (which may be the case for someone very immature). I’m not saying it can’t happen, but there seems to be something missing in the screening process from the get-go on both sides. Also, what role and why would an organization put their weight behind someone’s plea to become a CO midstream? The only reason that makes sense was to gain political influence with money being offered from the left.

    As for Mother Jones, oh man. If they had sent an iota of the number of supplies to kids in Afghanistan as all of us have, I’m pretty sure, they’d be broke. Man, we not only read 3 Cups of Tea, a lot of us peed it as well.

  7. TSO says:

    Thank you Kanani.

    I was thinking this earlier: By the CO supporting mentality, troops join with little to no awareness, and then realize that it is wrong, some sort of epiphany. Now, is it the culture of the military that allows this epiphany, or is it some random mutation? And if it is the culture, but that is a negative thing (i.e. troops become aware after seeing the horrors) then what accounts for the bulk of COs who apply before deploying?

  8. streetsweeper says:

    Speaking of these two fucking asshat’s…..Knappenberger and DeWald who threatened to kill us….do I need to go on?. What rock did they crawl under?

  9. Samantha Elliot says:

    “One commenter on This Aint Hell has identified himself as an IVAW member who “read Abdo’s statement” at a public event put on by the antiwar group. “I have never met him and don’t know him,” the commenter—who calls himself Army Sergeant—writes.”

    “Heh,” as they say.

  10. DaveO says:

    Mother Jones is to Journalism what Sesame Street is to the Oscars.

  11. Samantha Elliot says:

    Meaning: wow – that smart feller shore got this hear place figgerd out, don’t he?

  12. Doc Bailey says:

    hmmm. they certainly have you pegged. I mean if I didn’t know any better I’d say John uses a koran as TP, and burns prayer rugs at every opportunity.

    Is it just me, or do the most intolerant, always cry about tolerance. The most vile and hateful, complain about hateful (and hurtful) speech. Would this constitute a joke?

  13. Mike Grant says:

    I personally have no problem with legitimate “CO’s” as long as they accept posting to noncombat forward posts and the same risks as trigger-pullers without sniveling.

    I think it’s the Quakers or some similar American religious denomination who receive CO status almost automatically but willingly work in forward hospitals or as chaplain assistants, etc.

    AMS1 USN(RET)

    Operation Desert Storm (Bahrain) Jun ’91-Jul ’92

  14. Doc Bailey says:

    there are two men who achieved CO status, and received the MOH, applying for CO status only means you don’t want to kill anyone. Doesn’t mean you’re not going to the war. Last time I checked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *