Anti-War Now Equals Pro-American Deaths?!?
I forgot to mention this previously, but there was a shocking article in the Daily Cal last Friday, "Just Another American Publicity Stunt". In it, two members of Berkeley Stop the War make the claim:

We believe it has become impossible any longer to be anti-war without also being pro-resistance. The occupation will only end if the Iraqi people are successful at dealing increasingly decisive blows to a U.S. military that shows no signs of leaving.

That seems to me an unequivocal statement in support of increasing military casualties for the troops serving in Iraq. I don't know if someone has some alternate explanation for what that passage means, but if it means what I think it means, then it falls outside the bounds of acceptable war opposition in my mind. Calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq = alright, calling for more American deaths = not alright, in my book.

I hope this article discredits Snehal as any sort of leader worth following here in Berkeley. And by that, I don't mean that I oppose the causes he supports, and so I hope no one listens to him. In fact, I most likely agree with him on some of his anti-war views. I hope he is discredited because I hope that people in Berkeley (including the anti-war left) is still sane enough that they won't accept any sort of leadership from someone who is calling for the deaths of the Americans serving in Iraq (many of whom are usually low on the socio-economic ladder, and are victims of this conflict just like those Iraqi civilians who are being killed.)Email This Post!