Israeli Activists Replace Threatening Military Signs With Messages Of Peace And Resistance

[Purveyor]

For several years now, all roads branching off of major Israeli-controlled West Bank highways and taking drivers towards Palestinian villages and cities, have been dominated by the presence of red trilingual warning signs. The signs threaten Israelis that the roads lead to Palestinian Authority controlled areas. Driving on them should thus be considered both a violation of the law, which officially forbids Israelis from entering “Area A” (although this law is almost never enforced), and a risk to one’s life, the signs warn.

On Saturday, July 13, a group of Israeli women went on a road trip to replace these threatening signs with more inviting texts. They traveled between several Palestinian towns and with the help of local residents, covered the military’s red with sheets of more colorful cloth. The messages on the new signposts read: “Civilian zone: No entry to the army! This road leads to Palestinian settlements. Israeli civilians, do not be afraid! Come and visit Palestinian settlements, refuse to be enemies!” (The Hebrew and Arabic versions use alternative words for “settlements,” which do not correspond to the English word for illegal Israeli settlements.)

The group, called “We do not obey,” previously gained considerable attention for publicly stating that they break the law and illegally enter Palestinian villages in order to smuggle Palestinian women through checkpoints into Israel.

“We got really good reactions from Palestinians wherever we went, and people told us they feel like the original signs portray them as would-be murderers to be careful of,” Rivka Sum, one of the activists in the group, told +972. “One person said that every day when he comes home from work and drives by that sign, he is immediately depressed by the thought that Israelis reading it might think of him as a blood-thirsty cannibal or something.”

MORE...

http://972mag.com/israeli-activists-replace-threatening-military-signs-with-messages-of-peace-and-resistance/76431/

Lucky they weren't shot in the back for defacing israeli property...

[oberliner]

1. Good that you were able to get the rest of 972mag up

I was getting worried there for a minute.

[Purveyor]

2. Doing my best, indeed! ...

[oberliner]

9. They should send you a toaster

You've certainly earned it.

[delrem]

4. I don't get your point, or any part of it.

Your response is pure disruption and has no connection with the OP. To say nothing about how your disruption is a continuation of the identical disruption and can be said to define you, in these regards. This in spite of the fact that you post OPs citing 972. I'm sure you don't think that's a contradiction.

You can't cite any reason for banning 972 so you're reduced to the a kind of harassment that says that you, oberliner, regardless of author or what is said, have contempt for the general source. Again, I'm sure you don't think that's a contradiction.

It seems to me that what you are saying with your continuous harassment is that you not only aren't interested in the subject matter, but you have a bit of contempt for it - as if it doesn't make the grade.

Myself, I'm totally interested in what this movement, that did such a thing, does in future.

[Israeli]

6. delrem....

thought you might be interested in reading this :

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/all-my-people-of-the-year-1.312851#Scene_1

Is this the start of a civic revolt? Will it intensify in the new year that is starting? The demonstrators in Sheikh Jarrah and Bil'in, the women at the checkpoints, the people of the New Israel Fund, the lecturers at the universities, the writers and artists, all those who have broken the silence and are joining forces to defy the government and say "enough, this is too much already" - all of them are my People of the Year. The betrayal of the intellectuals has come to an end.

Someone has to represent them and to symbolize them, and the choice fell on Ilana Hammerman, who at her own initiative decided to translate words into action. She invited three young Palestinian women for a day of fun in Tel Aviv, overcoming the roadblocks on the way and in the mind. Her inner voice called on her to break the barrier of sound. Meanwhile, she has been joined by other Israeli women and hundreds more will soon join them.

[oberliner]

8. Every single article from that blog gets posted here

I think it's a little bizarre.

If it was happening with the "critical-of-Palestinian" blogs on the other side of the fence, would your response be the same?

I think there should be a one-article-per-week limit placed on both 972mag posts and those on the flip side.

Agreed?

[delrem]

10. No, you don't even make sense.

[John2]

3. There needs to

more Israelis like that. The problem is the Likud Government of Netanyahu. I don't discount the religious fanatics on the other side either. They assasinated the leaders of the Peace Process on both sides.

[delrem]

5. And so did the religious fanatics on the other other side.

"The problem is the Likud Government of Netanyahu"

A problem is that Netanyahu speaks for a victorious side.
A side that has plenty of victories behind it, and has the military power to lay claim to it.
On the other hand the Palistinians are effectively a remnant of the people who once lived in the land of Eretz Isreal, where the victorious side equates "victory" with "exclusion of them".

[Shaktimaan]

7. Except they weren't really expelled

These road signs are in the West Bank, showing where upcoming border changes (to area A) lie. IOW, Palestine, right?

So you're referring to Palestinian Arabs who left/expelled/cleansed etc. from what's now Israel (but was then Palestine), into the West Bank, which is still Palestine.

They're Palestinians living in Palestine, albeit a different part of it. Generally not very different though. And clearly the same "country."

It's noteworthy though, that Israel still has plenty of Arabs who they never felt the need to exclude in order to claim victory. While the Arab version of victory clearly required that the entire Jewish population be eradicated ... As they were from all Palestinian/Arab held land following the wars in 48 and 49.

[shaayecanaan]

11. The fatigue strategy: keep repeating the same lie again and again...

and hope that people get tired of rebutting it.

Apart from the settlement at Kfar Etzion in the West Bank, which fell during a pitched battle that the settlers themselves started by attacking both Arab convoys and retreating British units, there were no Jews living in the West Bank or Gaza - therefore there were no Jews to expel.

As for other Arab countries, reactions to the Jewish conquest of Palestine ranged from near-expulsion of Jews (as in the case of the Jews of Iraq) all the way through to banning Jews from leaving the country (Morocco).

Most Arab countries did not expel Jews, if only because they realised that those Jewish emigres would buttress the fledgling state of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Accordingly, the Israeli government tried to encourage Jews to emigrate from Egypt by conducting false-flag terrorist attacks against targets in Egypt (the Lavon affair), that Israel hoped would inspire anti-Jewish sentiment and corresponding wide-scale Jewish emigration. There is some evidence that similar false-flag attacks were behind Jewish emigration in Iraq.

[azurnoir]

12. thank you for the information of the true stories behind the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries

but really it doesn't end there there is another sad story of what was done to to at least Yemeni Jews when they got to Israel, about their children being taken from them, I think it may have had something to do with the fact that Yemeni Jews practiced polygamy in Yemen and some arrived in Israel with multiple wives or in the case of women they were part of a polygamous family


yep we see that technique used quite a bit in these parts and if it's really working to its utmost some will grow so very fatigued that they stop posting altogether at least on I/P

[shaayecanaan]

13. they also received the same strong-arm treatment

when it came to contraception, that the Ethiopians in Israel now endure, ie the belief that they were uncivilised and that the state should prevent them from breeding as much as possible.

[Shaktimaan]

14. Woah

The fatigue strategy: keep repeating the same lie again and again...
and hope that people get tired of rebutting it.

Is that what I'm doing? Fascinating. And what lie would that be exactly?

Apart from the settlement at Kfar Etzion in the West Bank, which fell during a pitched battle that the settlers themselves started by attacking both Arab convoys and retreating British units, there were no Jews living in the West Bank or Gaza - therefore there were no Jews to expel.

Is this the lie you believe I'm repeating using this ingenious strategy? I realized a critical difference between us here. While you believe my statement was bit merely untrue but an active lie; a lie that is a part of a far grander scheme centered around disseminating false historical facts, I believe that your repetition of absurd propaganda is merely due to you having been fed this propaganda yourself. You're not lying. You're merely wrong. Astoundingly so, but not maliciously.

Anyway, not only was Kfar Etzion far from being the sole settlement in the WB and Gaza, it's wasn't even the sole settlement in its immediate area. As one of four kibbutzim known as the Gush Etzion bloc, following the massacre there, the remaining Gush Etzion members surrendered. Of course, Kfar Etzion didn't merely "fall" it was looted and burned to the ground following a battle where all but four settlers were slaughtered after surrendering.

While its true that the Haganah staged successful attacks against Arab convoys in this area, this was months after Gush Etzion was cut off entirely from the rest of the Yishuv when all attempts at bringing supplies to the bloc were foiled; all convoy members killed by repeated Arab ambushes.

In other words, the attacks you cited were FAR from the "start" of regional hostilities. They were a footnote in the story of the bloc's blockade and the subsequent massacre.

Also there were MANY other villages, kibbutzim and cities where Jews lived in the WB, EJ and Gaza. Have you never heard of the Hebron Massacre?

As for other Arab countries, reactions to the Jewish conquest of Palestine ranged from near-expulsion of Jews (as in the case of the Jews of Iraq) all the way through to banning Jews from leaving the country (Morocco).

You left out the anti-Jewish riots and massacres. But your greater point holds... That everywhere, whether they were expelled, or prevented from leaving, the Jews in the Arab world faced undeniable oppression. That the oppression was varied in its forms hardly lessened its impact on the Jewish communities in Arab states.

Most Arab countries did not expel Jews, if only because they realised that those Jewish emigres would buttress the fledgling state of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Accordingly, the Israeli government tried to encourage Jews to emigrate from Egypt by conducting false-flag terrorist attacks against targets in Egypt (the Lavon affair),

The lavon affair had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to increase Jewish immigration. Bombings were intended to frame the Muslim brotherhood in the hopes of increasing the British control of Egypt.

that Israel hoped would inspire anti-Jewish sentiment and corresponding wide-scale Jewish emigration.

Why would a false flag op with the plan of framing Muslim nationalist and extremist religious groups hope to inspire anti-Jewish sentiment?

There is some evidence that similar false-flag attacks were behind Jewish emigration in Iraq.

No, there isn't. There is propaganda saying that the bombs, which targeted iraq's Jewish population, was the handiwork of Zionists working for Israel. There is zero evidence.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Point by point

The Hebron massacre was in 1929, and the British evacuated the Jewish population there thereafter. Therefore as at 1948, the Kfar Etzion settlement (or if you really want to split hairs, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements) was the only Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

The main Jordanian force (the Arab Legion, nominally under Jordanian control but staffed with British officers) initially hesitated to attack Kfar Etzion, but the fact that the settlers attacked retreating British units (put this under the category of "stupid things to do&quot was the precipitating factor that led Pasha Glubb to attack the settlement.

Re the Lavon Affair, point taken. The aim of Israel was not to cause blame to fall on Jews, although by using Egyptian Jews to carry out flase-flag terrorist attacks that is in fact what happened.

No, there isn't. There is propaganda saying that the bombs, which targeted iraq's Jewish population, was the handiwork of Zionists working for Israel. There is zero evidence.

There is certainly no proof, either that the bombs were planted as false-flag attacks or by Muslim extremists. However, I note the following passage from this article, which I presume you read as well:-

Now, a recent publication is shedding new light on the mystery. The revelations come from Yehuda Tager, an Israeli agent who operated in Baghdad, was exposed and spent about 10 years in prison there. According to Tager, the bombing of the Masuda Shemtov synagogue was not carried out by Israelis, but by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, at least one activist from the Zionist underground, Yosef Beit-Halahmi, did apparently carry out several terror attacks after the arrest of his comrades, in the hope of proving to the Iraqi authorities that the detainees were not involved in these actions. This is the first time someone involved in the episode is confirming that members of the Zionist underground did commit bombings in Baghdad.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080504154232/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=703367

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. See my post #16 for evidence for the false flag.

Naeimi Giladi's personal account and Livia Rokach's account based on Moshe Sharrett's personal diary.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

16. There is evidence.

Livia Rokach says so here:

Israel's Sacred Terrorism (Chapter 7)

And a personal account by Naeim Giladi called The Jews of Iraq also provides evidence.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Response

The Hebron massacre was in 1929, and the British evacuated the Jewish population there thereafter.

So your point is that only a nominal number of Jews in the WB were expelled after 1948, as evidenced by the fact that many of the Jewish population had already been cleansed beforehand? That's really your argument?

Remember that this is all in response to a comment by delrem I disagreed with, where she characterized the Israelis as the side that equated victory with the "exclusion of the others." A view not particularly enhanced IMO by the argument that very few Jews were expelled from the WB after the war because they had all already been expelled. Though it does highlight how the Arab side made sure to expel every last Jewish person from the territory they held. A sharp contrast to how Israel dealt with their Arab population. (And a great example of how delrem's prejudicial characterization of Israel has no basis in reality.)

Therefore as at 1948, the Kfar Etzion settlement (or if you really want to split hairs, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements) was the only Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

But it wasn't. This is a list of WB Jewish villages depopulated during that war:

Atarot, Beit HaArava, Kalia, Neve Yaakov, Gush Etzion, Ein Tzurim, Kfar Etzion, Masuot Yitzhak, Neve Danie, and Revadim

And in the Gaza Strip: Kfar Darom

The main Jordanian force (the Arab Legion, nominally under Jordanian control but staffed with British officers) initially hesitated to attack Kfar Etzion, but the fact that the settlers attacked retreating British units (put this under the category of "stupid things to do&quot was the precipitating factor that led Pasha Glubb to attack the settlement.

Hang on a second. Lets first refer to your original assertion and then I'll outline the specific history which should demonstrate the discrepancies bt what you're insinuating and what really occurred.

Apart from the settlement at Kfar Etzion in the West Bank, which fell during a pitched battle that the settlers themselves started by attacking both Arab convoys and retreating British units, there were no Jews living in the West Bank or Gaza

Basically that the massacre happened during a battle started by the settlers who attacked retreating British forces. Then you revised, saying that it was a response to this attack on British forces, (instead of the same battle), but you still identify the settlers as the instigators.

According to Benny Morris the Arab League in Palestine was under British command. Both Jerusalem and the gush Etzion bloc had been cut off from the rest of the Yishuv and no supplies could get in. Several Haganah convoys were attacked over a period of months and suffered very heavy casualties. So to be clear, it was the Arab act of isolating these areas and killing members of the convoys sent to resupply them which stands out as the initial instigating act.

The Haganah responded by ambushing Arab convoys along these same roads that were en route to resupply Arab positions within and around Jerusalem.

On April 12 and May 3, Etzion Bloc operatives ambushed Arab Legion units, killing several Legionnaires. The AL responded by launching a large scale attack on the 4th, which was repelled and during which many Legionnaires died, some of whom may have been British or retreating I suppose. Up until then the only attacks on Gush Etzion had been by Arab Irregulars, (all of which were repelled, but there WERE prior attacks.)

The AL response was on the 12th, the attack that led to the massacre (which it doesn't seem like the AL participated in.) That said, I don't think it makes sense to view the massacre as part of a cycle started by the settlers themselves.

Re the Lavon Affair, point taken. The aim of Israel was not to cause blame to fall on Jews, although by using Egyptian Jews to carry out flase-flag terrorist attacks that is in fact what happened.

Were the lavon attacks really terrorism? Is an attack on property alone with no plans to hurt anyone a terrorist act?

However, at least one activist from the Zionist underground, Yosef Beit-Halahmi, did apparently carry out several terror attacks after the arrest of his comrades, in the hope of proving to the Iraqi authorities that the detainees were not involved in these actions. This is the first time someone involved in the episode is confirming that members of the Zionist underground did commit bombings in Baghdad.

That was a single member acting alone, not under orders from Israel and only as part of a plan to demonstrate the innocence of his compatriots, who were clearly falsely accused to begin with. (And again, was anyone killed in these bombings? If not do they really qualify as terrorism at all?) That said, at least this accusation makes sense, unlike the attacks that were famously blamed on Zionists, (which you appear to see no reason to question.)

Why would Zionist members throw a hand grenade into a crowd of Jews that had specifically completed the procedure to emigrate to Israel and were waiting to embark on their flight? Even if there existed a plan in Israel to increase Iraqi immigration (instead of the opposite), wouldn't they try and avoid targeting anyone who WAS ALREADY immigrating? Not only is there a lack of evidence, the accusation defies both reason and all actual, real evidence.

[shaayecanaan]

23. The Jewish population was nominal anyway...

The Jewish population in Hebron prior to the riots was 700.

Atarot, Beit HaArava, Kalia, Neve Yaakov, Gush Etzion, Ein Tzurim, Kfar Etzion, Masuot Yitzhak, Neve Danie, and Revadim

Okay, point taken. Most of them were less than a few years old in 1948, but point taken nevertheless. By my rough arithmetic, the Jewish population of the West Bank was somewhere between one and two thousand, all of whom fled or were pushed out by the Jordanians, vs 750 000 Palestinians that fled or were pushed out by the Jews.

Both Jerusalem and the gush Etzion bloc had been cut off from the rest of the Yishuv and no supplies could get in. Several Haganah convoys were attacked over a period of months and suffered very heavy casualties. So to be clear, it was the Arab act of isolating these areas and killing members of the convoys sent to resupply them which stands out as the initial instigating act.

Gush Etzion was within the West Bank, and reserved for the establishment of a Palestinian state. You're trying to assert that the unwillingness of Arab forces to allow Jewish military units to proceed through their territory was an act of aggression?

Lets put that another way: if the United States was unwilling to allow a Chinese military supply convoy to pass through its territory, would that constitute an act of war by the United States against China?

According to Benny Morris the Arab League in Palestine was under British command.

No, it wasnt, and I don't think Benny Morris said any such thing. Had he said so, and the Arab League was a British unit, then the Arab-Israeli war should properly be called the British-Israeli war, as the League was the only Arab unit of any great consequence.

It is true that the League was staffed with British officers, all of whom had been required to resign their commissions in the British Army before the war. But Glubb took his orders from Abdullah. The advance on Jerusalem, about which Glubb was fairly ambivalent, was done at Abdullah's insistence.

On April 12 and May 3, Etzion Bloc operatives ambushed Arab Legion units, killing several Legionnaires. The AL responded by launching a large scale attack on the 4th, which was repelled and during which many Legionnaires died, some of whom may have been British or retreating I suppose. Up until then the only attacks on Gush Etzion had been by Arab Irregulars, (all of which were repelled, but there WERE prior attacks.)

The Etzion settlers also attacked regular British units, who were withdrawing pending the end of the British mandatory administration in Palestine.

Were the lavon attacks really terrorism? Is an attack on property alone with no plans to hurt anyone a terrorist act?

Most of the time the IRA made telephone warnings in advance of their bombings to try and avoid deaths while maximising property damage. "Terrorism" is an inherently rubbery word, but certainly what the Israelis did during the Lavon affair comes within the extended definition.

(And again, was anyone killed in these bombings? If not do they really qualify as terrorism at all?)

Apart from one instance, no one was killed in any of the 1951 bombings in Iraq, and the fact that any deaths happened at all may have been inadvertent. This was what apparently lead the British to consider that bombings were false-flag incidents, that they seemed calculated to not cause any actual casualties.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Excuse my late response

The Jewish population in Hebron prior to the riots was 700.

True, but there'd been a consistent population of Jews living there for thousands of years. I'd offer that the number of people dispersed and killed is one side of the equation, the other being the end of an ancient Jewish lineage existing nearly-unbroken within the oldest village on earth up until that point. Yes, it's only 700 souls. Yet still historically significant.

Okay, point taken. Most of them were less than a few years old in 1948, but point taken nevertheless. By my rough arithmetic, the Jewish population of the West Bank was somewhere between one and two thousand, all of whom fled or were pushed out by the Jordanians, vs 750 000 Palestinians that fled or were pushed out by the Jews.

Is that including Jerusalem? Easily 1500 there living in their historic homeland who were also pushed out in their entirety. Or killed.

And there's the real difference. In Israel you can still find a 20% non Jewish population who were NOT killed or expelled. In east Jerusalem, Gaza or the West Bank... Zero Jews were left following the Arab invasion. There wasn't room for a single percent.

Gush Etzion was within the West Bank, and reserved for the establishment of a Palestinian state. You're trying to assert that the unwillingness of Arab forces to allow Jewish military units to proceed through their territory was an act of aggression?

This is the part that made me insist on replying despite the late date. When exactly was this land "reserved for the establishment of a Palestinian state?" Can you please show me where that phrase appears on the partition agreement. You can't cuz it doesn't. The words Palestinian, reserved and so on aren't even in that document which the Palestinians rejected, thereby INVALIDATING, anyway.

Reality: that land was PROFFERED to POTENTIALLY serve that purpose in the event that the Arabs accepted the UN's partition plan (as the Yishuv had). But they didn't. They rejected it and began a civil war.

You see, up till then, the only land that had been off limits for Jewish emigration and cultivation had been Transjordan. Once a part of Palestine, once 80% of Palestine, it was split off and made off limits to the Balfour declaration. So all of the areas that had been settled and (pay attention here) BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE YISHUV, within the borders of Balfour were entirely legal and as such had every right to expect to not have their children starved to death just because the Arabs living nearby decided that their land should really belong to the Arabs, even if they had to be slowly killed to attain it.

Lets put that another way: if the United States was unwilling to allow a Chinese military supply convoy to pass through its territory, would that constitute an act of war by the United States against China?

I'm sorry, maybe this is getting too complex for me. Please explain the scenario where you find it ethical for an army to starve several villages of peaceful farmers because they are of a different ethnicity, (as part of a war started by that same army when they rejected peace terms and began slaughtering said civilians.)

So by this argument is Israel within their rights to begin starving every Arab village within their borders? Because they haven't done so thus far. While it looks like it was the first thing the Arabs began doing to the Jews the second they got the chance.

According to Benny Morris the Arab League in Palestine was under British command.
No, it wasnt, and I don't think Benny Morris said any such thing.

He did. I just read it. British command officially but realistically under Arab control as the war progressed. Never so much Jordan though at this point.

The Etzion settlers also attacked regular British units, who were withdrawing pending the end of the British mandatory administration in Palestine

.

Yeah, I've read accounts of this from several sources and they all back my version of events. I've heard nothing supporting your story. By all means link it up but everything I've seen supports what I already reiterated.

Most of the time the IRA made telephone warnings in advance of their bombings to try and avoid deaths while maximising property damage. "Terrorism" is an inherently rubbery word, but certainly what the Israelis did during the Lavon affair comes within the extended definition.

Fair enough.

Apart from one instance, no one was killed in any of the 1951 bombings in Iraq, and the fact that any deaths happened at all may have been inadvertent. This was what apparently lead the British to consider that bombings were false-flag incidents, that they seemed calculated to not cause any actual casualties.

Doubtful. The main "bombing" was really a tossed grenade aimed at Iraqi Zionists preparing to depart for Israel. THAT was the explosion that caused casualties and coincidentally the same one that those Iraqi Zionists were charged and hung for as saboteurs. So the main bombing WAS intended to cause casualties, as it DID, and the people framed for it were Iraqi Zionists themselves. Nothing about it appeared to be a false flag for purposes of recruitment which were already at maximum anyway.

[shaayecanaan]

25. the hebron jews dated from the fifteenth century

I am on my phone at the moment so cannot easily check but I believe the Hebron Jews were originally Sephardic Jews who migrated there after suffering difficulties in Europe. And Hebron is hardly the oldest town in the west bank, Jericho is the oldest continually inhabited place on earth.

The longest standing Jewish population are the Samaritans near nablus who have been there since biblical times. Other than that I don't think any Jewish communities in palestine predate the crusades during the millenarian period.

Regarding the Arab legion, I think you may be confused. The al was undoubtedly under the command of British officers, however it was ultimately a Jordanian fighting unit that took orders from abdullah. I don't think that morris says anywhere that glubb took orders from the British government although he did brief a number of British government figures from time to time.
Regarding

[oberliner]

18. "Lucky they weren't shot in the back for defacing israeli property..."

Great insight into where you are coming from.

It's always helpful when you add these little nuggets.

[Purveyor]

19. My pleasure, indeed. eom

[oberliner]

20. Scary that it would bring you pleasure

Sometimes you seem so reasonable and then you break out such comments.

Like you really imagine Israelis shooting people in the back for defacing property.

No wonder you believe the things you do with this as your perspective.

[pelsar]

22. Lucky they weren't shot in the back ...

actually we prefer to shoot them in the neck......
1) when the blood starts flowing all over the place, the stains of it reminds others that we like shooting people

2) we have to avoid the main organs, so that we can take them out of the body and sell them or implant them on jewish israelis

3) we get more points and get to put notches on our guns.....

4) if they are arabs, we can always scoop up the blood and drink it..it high in protein and gives us better eye sight.

and you'll notice that pretty much everyone here on this forum apparently agrees with you given their "responses" they are after all "progressives

....and we are (all of us who have served, including our sons....), all real blood sucking, sadistic killers....