Socialist Revolution Goal of Anti-War Protestors

Here's a photo from the September 24 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. For anyone with the slightest doubt about the "peaceful" intentions of these groups this should clear things up:

Of course if you think one sign isn't sufficient proof, here's a gallery of photos from other anti-war protests.

Readers may recall the statements by Ray Davis who founded Military Families Voice for Victory:

Third are the "peace" groups. There is just no nice way to put it, they hate America and they hate any free society. They are an aggregate of anti-capitalist groups. For them it is not about peace but control. In their mind if they can control the United States they can control the world. The only human life that has any worth to them is their own. You only have to spend a few minutes in a debate with one of these people before you realize they are not peaceful people. They may have a polite peaceful veneer but underneath beats the heart of Joseph Stalin. For our troops their biggest enemy is a collective of terrorist groups. For those of us at home it is a collective of Marxists, communists, fascists, and Maoists masquerading as peace groups.

Moonbattery has more on the roots of these "peace" groups:

International ANSWER, which has played a key roll in most of the major "antiwar" demonstrations since 9/11, has no problem whatsoever with military force when it is applied on behalf of totalitarian communism. It is a front group for the Workers World Party, which split off from Trotskyist communists because the latter disapproved of Soviet tanks rolling into Hungary in 1956 to crush those brave enough to aspire to freedom there. To the WWP, the only good place for a counter-revolutionary is under the treads of a tank.

Moonbattery also has an excerpt from a recent Christopher Hitchens piece: "Anti-War, My Foot, The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington." which is a must read for anyone who wants to learn more about who is behind the "peace" movement:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh.