Unspoken Words Have Meaning

[Flanders]

Saving Soviet Communism in WWII was the beginning of what was to become a permanent plank in the Democrat party’s platform. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union not one American Communist/Socialist would have fought for this country after Pearl Harbor. Those who went into the military after Pearl Harbor did so to save the Soviet Union.

The president learned his Communism from books, his family, and from mentors. Community organizing was his only experience in the field before he was elected to office in Illinois. John Kerry along with every older top Democrat got their experience in the political trenches fighting to save Communism in Vietnam.

Today, they have the genocidal world they wanted when they handed victory to Communist butchers in SE Asia. Their problem is that Muslims are doing the killing that was supposed to be reserved for Communist “freedom fighters.” Note that Communist genocide is on its way to Latin America if Democrats have anything to say about it.

Islam’s genocidal bent does not bother Barack Taqiyya. Unless John Kerry and his kind are complete idiots they have to be wondering if a worldwide caliphate will do to Communists what they plan on doing to everybody else.

Let me point out that there is not much daylight between Taqiyya the Liar and John Kerry on any topic. I suspect that they are in agreement on population controls, too. Whenever Taqiyya or Kerry say anything I always unscramble their doublespeak. (A good rule to apply to every Democrat.) Population control is definitely behind this one:

Speaking at the U.S.-Africa Summit earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry had a bit of astonishing advice for African leaders. While noting that Africa faces a starvation problem, he also admonished its leaders not to create more farms.

The reason? Adding more farms would contribute to “global warming.” Yeah, he really said that:

XXXXX​

Without getting into the whole global warming debate, the fact remains: it is a debate. While some data is inconclusive, other data suggests that the planet hasn’t warmed for nearly 18 years – or more. What isn’t a debate is that without food, people starve to death.

Kerry: Starving Africa Shouldn’t Build More Farms Because It Would Contribute to Global Warming
By MIKE MILLER
1 day ago

Kerry: Starving Africa Shouldn?t Build More Farms Because It Would Contribute to Global Warming​

One indisputable fact: Malaria kills a million or so kids a year because of the unnecessary ENVIRONMENTAL ban on DDT. The question is: How does Taqiyya the Liar feel about black Africans starving to death? Put the question in perspective by connecting environmental crackpots like Nobel Peace Prize recipient (2004) Wangari Maathai to John Kerry. She accused white scientists of creating HIV/AIDS in order to kill off black Africans. Wangari was a black woman who died in 2011; so I cannot ask her how she feels about death by starvation in order to save the planet for white folks like John Kerry. (I cannot find her views on the DDT ban.)

Government-sponsored slow death genocide is one thing. Lenin and Stalin killed millions by starvation, while latter-day Communists like Pol Pot (1925 - 1998) preferred the hands-on version in Cambodia.

American Communists get away with glorifying Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al., while they secretly admired Pol Pot. He was the ultimate Communist they are all proud of but dare not mention.

A lot of public voices and well-known touchy-feely liberals pay a whole lot of lip service to the horrors of genocide. The fact is this: Genocide became a tool of government in the last century thanks to the very people who advocate government control over every aspect of life —— and the method of death. I’ll make my case against those genocide-hypocrites with excerpts from two different articles in an effort to tie Cambodian genocide to Muslim genocide.

NOTE: Muslim Turks in the Ottoman Empire slaughtering 2,000,000 Christian Armenians preceded Communist genocide in the Soviet Union. Communists and Nazis improved on the technology, but Nazi Germany gets the blame more often than the Soviet Union. Lay it on one or the other if you must. As far as I am concerned it is fair to say that genocide is Islam’s curse on the world.

There is far too much good stuff in Cliff Kincaid’s piece about Cambodia for me to cover it all. I do want to cite a few items that are important in light of the current Administration’s priorities:

With President Obama reluctantly acting on behalf of Christians in Iraq, in order to avert what he calls a potential “genocide,” the United Nations is going through the motions of coming to grips with the nearly 40-year-old communist genocide in Cambodia. A U.N.-sponsored court has convicted two Cambodian communist leaders of crimes against humanity.

I’m not certain what A U.N.-sponsored court is. I am sure that the United Nations never tried any top Cambodian Communist in the UN’s phoney International Criminal Court although prosecuting individuals for genocide was one of the reasons for the establishing the ICC in 2002. It is safe to say the United Nations did not have Communists in mind for the ICC. The UN’s illegitimate judicial system does not want to set a precedent by trying Communists in The Hague. I’ll wager that you’ll never see a Muslim butcher tried in The Hague either.

For the record, the U.S. supported Lon Nol, who was defeated by the Khmer Rouge in 1975. The New York Times ran a story headlined, “Indochina without Americans: for most a better life.” Out of a total population of seven million, some two to three million Cambodians were killed.

Rather than facilitate the genocide, the U.S. tried to prevent it.

Defeating a Communist government was the military objective. Even if you give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt and accept that he simply wanted to get America out of a war, it was Kerry and his kind who worked to facilitate the eventual genocide in Cambodia not to mention the genocide the North Vietnamese carried out against the people of South Vietnam. Anybody who expects less than some form of genocide resulting from Secretary of State Kerry’s involvement in the Middle East is living in a dream world.

It ain’t Scrabble but it is a word game

Words have meaning even when they are not spoken. Separating Communism’s innate brutality from the Khmer Rouge is the template for separating Muslim brutality from the religion of peace —— Islam.

In his statement on Thursday, Obama called them “terrorists” or “militants” but did not use the words “Islamic” or “Islamists.”

XXXXX​

The Khmer Rouge was the communist version of ISIS in Iraq.

XXXXX​

There was only one reference in the story by Thomas Fuller and Julia Wallace to the fact that the Khmer Rouge was a communist organization. The story noted that “Mr. Nuon Chea, who was the deputy secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea under Pol Pot, defended Khmer Rouge policies as necessary to the development of a ‘people’s democratic revolution.’”

XXXXX​

In other words, the genocide was communism in action. Killing people on a mass scale is what Marxists do.

XXXXX​

. . . Khmer Rouge were communists. The phrase actually means “Red Cambodians.”

XXXXX​

A 1984 film, “The Killing Fields,” was supposed to be the story about the genocide. But as Irvine noted, “it would have been truer to reality if it had dared to use the word ‘communist’ in describing those who were doing the killing.”

Genocide: the Communist and Islamic Versions
By Cliff Kincaid August 9, 2014

Genocide: the Communist and Islamic Versions​

Impatience is a virtue to fanatics hellbent on genocide; they move things along wherever possible.

I’ll close with Mark Steyn who points out that Muslims are in a hurry. They are presently stymied by Israel’s ‘s stubbornness. Rather than lose their edge Muslims stay in practice with smaller targets:

There have been Christians in Mosul for just shy of two millennia, since the first century. There are none today.

The Yazidi are practitioners of Kurdistan's oldest religion, fire-worshippers whose presence in the region predates Islam. They're either being executed or starved to death on a mountain:

We are being slaughtered. Our entire religion is being wiped off the face of the earth.

ISIS are fast-track Nazis. No messing about with a few property restrictions and intermarriage laws as a little light warm-up: They're only in the business of "final solutions", and they start on Day One and don't quit until the last Christian and Yazidi is dead or fled.

These final excerpts are not true of all Americans. They describe Democrats and the policies of betrayal they set in motion during the Vietnam War:

An engineer and a father of three young children, Karim spent years working for the U.S. Army in his area, then for an American medical charity. He's been waiting for months to find out whether the U.S. government will grant him a Special Immigrant Visa because of his service, and because of the danger he currently faces.​

Good luck with that. America's depraved immigration bureaucracy is too busy organizing teddy bears for gangbangers at the southern border and terrorizing bagpipers at the northern borders. So how did helping out the Americans work out for Karim?

XXXXX​

Perhaps it's just as well we're so bad at "winning hearts and minds". We won Karim's heart and mind - and then ran over it in the stampede for the exits. A few weeks ago I quoted Prince Sirik Matak, the former Cambodian Prime Minister, shortly before his murder by the Khmer Rouge:

Mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed the mistake of believing in you, the Americans.​

On the lam, trying to keep one step ahead of ISIS, Karim can be forgiven for coming to the same bleak conclusion.

You Want Nazis?
by Mark Steyn • Aug 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm

You Want Nazis? :: SteynOnline
​

 

[irosie91]

flanders your post is brilliant-----beware those who wield the ax

 

[whitehall]

The democrat party has been flirting with socialism and communism since the 20's. One of the infamous investigative reporting team that brought down the Nixon administration was a "red diaper baby", a phrase to describe kids who are raised as little Marxists. The Media knew that Bernstein was the son of card carrying communists but kept it a secret because they hated Nixon more than communists.

 

[Flanders]

flanders your post is brilliant-----beware those who wield the ax

To rosie91: You are a person of nice judgement.

The democrat party has been flirting with socialism and communism since the 20's. One of the infamous investigative reporting team that brought down the Nixon administration was a "red diaper baby", a phrase to describe kids who are raised as little Marxists. The Media knew that Bernstein was the son of card carrying communists but kept it a secret because they hated Nixon more than communists.

To whitehall: I occasionally call them red underwear Democrats.

 

[Flanders]

Peace Without Victory constitutes the single most destructive unspoken words in America’s history. No president said them since Woodrow Wilson said them to Congress one foul day in January 1917, yet those three words governed America’s foreign policy since then.

World War One was a Peace Without Victory war. Germany agreed to an armistice then was treated as the loser.

Total victory was the objective in World War Two.

Korea was America’s first war fought without victory as the objective.

Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan were Peace Without Victory wars.

Examine every war I cited and ask yourself which one did the most good for America and the world?

Incidentally, with each succeeding war since WWI the number of civilians killed outpaced military personnel killed in combat. And that’s not counting the astronomical number of people killed by their own governments. So much for Peace Without Victory.

Now comes the doublespeak. Thomas Friedman converted Peace Without Victory to No Victors, No Vanquished. Notice my emphasis in this excerpt from Wilson’s infamous address to Congress:

The statesmen of both of the groups of nations now arrayed against one another have said, in terms that could not be misinterpreted, that it was no part of the purpose they had in mind to crush their antagonists. But the implications of these assurances may not be equally clear to all-may not be the same on both sides of the water. I think it will be serviceable if I attempt to set forth what we understand them to be.

They imply, first of all, that it must be a peace without victory. It is not pleasant to say this. I beg that I may be permitted to put my own interpretation upon it and that it may be understood that no other interpretation was in my thought. I am seeking only to face realities and to face them without soft concealments. Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last. Only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance.

The equality of nations upon which peace must be founded if it is to last must be an equality of rights; the guarantees exchanged must neither recognize nor imply a difference between big nations and small, between those that are powerful and those that are weak. Right must be based upon the common strength, not upon the individual strength, of the nations upon whose concert peace will depend. Equality of territory or of resources there of course cannot be; nor any sort of equality not gained in the ordinary peaceful and legitimate development of the peoples themselves. But no one asks or expects anything more than an equality of rights. Mankind is looking now for freedom of life, not for equipoises of power.

And there is a deeper thing involved than even equality of right among organized nations. No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property. I take it for granted, for instance, if I may venture upon a single example, that statesmen everywhere are agreed that there should be a united, independent, and autonomous Poland, and that henceforth inviolable security of life, of worship, and of industrial and social development should be guaranteed to all peoples who have lived hitherto under the power of governments devoted to a faith and purpose hostile to their own.

“No Victors, No Vanquished.” first described the Six Day War in 1967. The result: The Yom Kippur War in 1973. In short: Peace Without Victory is a failed policy for every country that tries it.

I want to close with one more disaster from Wilson’s Peace Without Victory address:

The terms of the immediate peace agreed upon will determine whether it is a peace for which such a guarantee can be secured. The question upon which the whole future peace and policy of the world depends is this: Is the present war a struggle for a just and secure peace, or only for a new balance of power? If it be only a struggle for a new balance of power, who will guarantee, who can guarantee the stable equilibrium of the new arrangement? Only a tranquil Europe can be a stable Europe. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace.

Balance of power is a political fact of life. Power resides in one ideology or another backed up by military force not the touchy-feely garbage Wilson spouted, or the moral leadership Taqiyya the Liar sells. Power cannot be shared. Only fools fail to understand that totalitarian ideologies cannot, will not, live in peace with any individual or government that dares to disagree. Wilsonian fools failed to recognize that immutable fact about Communism. Today, they are compounding their ignorance as the balance of power is shifting to Islam.

NOTE: At the same time Muslims drive “infidels” out of Islamic countries, or simply kill them, they are infiltrating non-Muslim countries with the stated goal of turning those countries into Islamic theocracies. If that is not the first step in shifting the balance of power to Islam it will do until something else comes along.

The only bright spot I can see is that Communists will kill Muslims without hesitation rather than play that stupid Peace Without Victory game. America’s enemies killing each other won’t do living Americans any good AFTER AMERICA IS DISPOSED OF, but if there is a hereafter those Americans who are scheduled for extinction will get some pleasure watching Communists and Muslims kill one another.

You can read Wilson’s entire speech at this link:

First World War.com - Primary Documents - Peace Without Victory, 22 January 1917

 

[Flanders]

Jeannie DeAngelis hangs the president’s own maximalism out to dry. Notice how he moves the idiocy of no victor/no vanquished from internal politics in a foreign country, to domestic policies here at home with not a word about how his Peace Without Victory policy will win the war against Islamic fundamentalism:

The definition of a maximalist is a “person who holds extreme views and is not prepared to compromise.” Although he accuses others of being maximalist saboteurs, there is no one who holds more “extreme views,” or is less “prepared to compromise” than Barack Obama.

XXXXX​

Alluding to Iraq and Israel, Obama reassured Friedman that in the Middle East he is only going to involve the U.S. if “different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

That “no victor/no vanquished” philosophy must be the driving force behind his plans to “provide a unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work permits.” Never mind that those sorts of “inclusive politics” fly in the face of an American public that opposes executive action on amnesty and a Congressional community desperately trying to curtail the president’s repeated autocratic maneuverings.

Speaking specifically about the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the president pointed out to Freidman that “Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you.”

That sort of catch-up is precisely what Obama is about to experience himself. Because despite his delusional rhetoric, and based on his own all-time low approval ratings in the polls, this November his maximalist positions will catch up with him and the equally maximalist wing of the party he leads.

August 11, 2014
Obama's One-sided "No victor/No vanquished" Maximalist Philosophy
By Jeannie DeAngelis

Articles: Obama's One-sided "No victor/No vanquished" Maximalist Philosophy​

Regardless of the reams of Mutual Admiration Society literature published in the New York Times —— General MacArthur demolished No Victors, No Vanquished in 17 words:

. . . in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed,. . .

Incidentally, Democrats preach their sickness to Americans when they should be talking to Muslims who laugh at Peace Without Victory. Democrats use the same technique with their environmental garbage. They preach to, and punish, Americans, well-knowing that their message is ignored in China and India.

Finally, the Friedman interview did not escape George Will’s keen eye:

WILL: I think we learned three things from his extraordinarily and alarmingly interview with the New York Times. First, he said he wants a settlement in the Middle East, but in Iraq particularly where there are no victors and no vanquished. No, ISIL is not in the realm of political differences. They cut people's heads off. They say that the city have to be exterminated because they're devil worshipers. It's very hard to have a no victors, no vanquished relationship with people like this.

Is President Obama doing too little or too much in Iraq? | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News​

​

 

[Flanders]

Finally, the Friedman interview did not escape George Will’s keen eye:

WILL: I think we learned three things from his extraordinarily and alarmingly interview with the New York Times. First, he said he wants a settlement in the Middle East, but in Iraq particularly where there are no victors and no vanquished. No, ISIL is not in the realm of political differences. They cut people's heads off. They say that the city have to be exterminated because they're devil worshipers. It's very hard to have a no victors, no vanquished relationship with people like this.

Is President Obama doing too little or too much in Iraq? | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News​

​

Here’s the video of George Will’s comments as part of the panel discussion. Ron Fournier also has an interesting observation on no victors, no vanquished:

"Fox News Sunday" Group: Obama's Foreign Policy In Russia & Middle East | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[jwoodie]

Stop quoting and start thinking.