NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.


Sheehan Arrested During Anti-War Protest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050926/ap_on_re_us/war_demonstrations)

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan, carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down — knowing they would be arrested — and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!"

Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police.

Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.

Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.

Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year. She attracted worldwide attention last month with her 26-day vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

The demonstration is part of a broader anti-war effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from anti-war groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush is "very much aware" of the protesters and "recognizes that there are differences of opinion" on Iraq.

"It's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views. And that's what you're seeing here in Washington, D.C.," McClellan said. "They're well-intentioned, but the president strongly believes that withdrawing ... would make us less safe and make the world more dangerous."

The protest Monday followed a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters: Don't be a group of unthinking lemmings," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. She said the anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."

Give it a fucking rest, Etrusca. I don't recall seeing any accounts of Sheehan spitting on soldiers.
(The religious right, btw, are already making a nuisance of themselves at the funerals of war dead, and I doubt anyone is likely to call Fred Phelps a liberal.)

I boycott this thread. I don't care about this Sheehan woman.

Since I need you to know I'm boycotting it, I have to post in it. Which means I'm still contributing to it, in a way. So my boycott is going to start AFTER this post:).

COMMENTARY: This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.

I doubt it will happen again. For one thing, I think that most people who disagree with the war in Iraq feel nothing but sympathy for those fighting under their nation's flag. I also think that most people know that it is individuals who commit war crimes, and thus they don't blame every soldier for the actions of a few soldiers.

I'm really not knowledgeable about this whole thing, and have missed about 9,000 pages of debate on these forums. But:

- they were demonstrating without a permit, and were arrested: so be it;
- some great historical protestors have been arrested;
- some less great historical protestors have been arrested.

To whit, then...your point? I can't honestly say I believe there are that many Iraqi insurgents shouting with glee at news that a few people sat on a sidewalk for a bit, so I doubt it really 'gives the enemy hope'.

The 'grumpy face icon' means I assume you are annoyed with her for her actions. Why let it bother you so much?

Good.

Didn't know it's illegal to sit down in the USA ... :eek: :(

Look its the nonviolent protest so that when the government has to arrest us we can have the moral highground technique. Frankly I'm not impressed by her attempts at publicity.

Meh. Why is she protesting again? And isnt bushy in texas or something?

and I doubt anyone is likely to call Fred Phelps a liberal.)

Nope, but he is now, and always has been a democrat.

I'm really not knowledgeable about this whole thing, and have missed about 9,000 pages of debate on these forums. But:

- they were demonstrating without a permit, and were arrested: so be it;
- some great historical protestors have been arrested;
- some less great historical protestors have been arrested.

To whit, then...your point? I can't honestly say I believe there are that many Iraqi insurgents shouting with glee at news that a few people sat on a sidewalk for a bit, so I doubt it really 'gives the enemy hope'.

The 'grumpy face icon' means I assume you are annoyed with her for her actions. Why let it bother you so much?
Because any criticism of the irresponsible manner in which the fuckwit is using the American military is an assault on the constitution that said military are doing nothing to defend from said fuckwit, as far as I can make out.

Since nobody was throwing stones or tossing spittle, wouldn't this have been the very definition of "peaceful assembly"?

:confused:

Fuck the "Father knows best" authoritarian, walk on eggshells state!

- they were demonstrating without a permit, and were arrested: so be it;



What's the use of demonstrations if you need a permit?
:confused:

And this needed its own thread because?

Give it a fucking rest, Etrusca. I don't recall seeing any accounts of Sheehan spitting on soldiers.
(The religious right, btw, are already making a nuisance of themselves at the funerals of war dead, and I doubt anyone is likely to call Fred Phelps a liberal.)
Fred Phelps represents no one except Fred Phelps. And I never stated that I thought the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan ever spit on soldiers. I only indicated that this is the same pattern I and my brothers endured during and after Vietnam.

I doubt it will happen again. For one thing, I think that most people who disagree with the war in Iraq feel nothing but sympathy for those fighting under their nation's flag. I also think that most people know that it is individuals who commit war crimes, and thus they don't blame every soldier for the actions of a few soldiers.
I sincerely hope you're correct, although the pattern already closely resembles the one used by "protestors" during Vietnam.

What's the use of demonstrations if you need a permit?
:confused:
A permit to demonstrate? I hope to Buddha this isn't the case. :mad:

That's bullshit.

Didn't know it's illegal to sit down in the USA ... :eek: :(

Only if you sit where "the man" don't want you to sit.

You're perfectly free to sit anywere else, therefore you still have your freedom.

Only if you sit where "the man" don't want you to sit.

You're perfectly free to sit anywere else, therefore you still have your freedom.
Not exactly true. You have the right to sit on public property when you wish, not private property.

And this needed its own thread because?
Just documenting the progression of this "protest" so that when it turns nasty and soldiers are disrespected, the pattern will be remembered.

Well, I am protesting this thread. Picture me sitting in it, just looking at all of you, not saying anything, but refusing to budge, taking up space, making you nervous...holding up a sign saying, "Shhh."

Just documenting the progression of this "protest" so that when it turns nasty and soldiers are disrespected, the pattern will be remembered.
Ya know we're family, Pops, but it almost sounds like you're attacking our contitutional right to peacefully assemble. Isn't freedom what our soldiers are fighting for to begin with?

A permit to demonstrate? I hope to Buddha this isn't the case. :mad:

That's bullshit.
Hardly. Almost every city, town and burg in the US requires a parade permit. It's simply a matter of logistics and order. It's for the benefit of the "protestors" as much as it is for the remainder of the public and the authorities. Many "demonstrations" tend to erupt in violence. If the police aren't aware that a "demonstration" is going to take place, they can't block traffic or protect the "protestors."

Well, I am protesting this thread. Picture me sitting in it, just looking at all of you, not saying anything, but refusing to budge, taking up space, making you nervous...holding up a sign saying, "Shhh."

Excuse me ma'am, but you'll have to move. You were not issued a permit for sitting in this thread.

Well, I am protesting this thread. Picture me sitting in it, just looking at all of you, not saying anything, but refusing to budge, taking up space, making you nervous...holding up a sign saying, "Shhh."

Look, Eut, I just don't think we need...

*trips over Sinuhue
*falls on ass
*breaks ass

God damnit! Who put this protester here? I swear to God, I'm gonna sue! How is your protesting gonna fix MY BROKEN ASS!?!?!

Fred Phelps represents no one except Fred Phelps. And I never stated that I thought the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan ever spit on soldiers. I only indicated that this is the same pattern I and my brothers endured during and after Vietnam.
Right. Now we're getting there. No fucker is entitled to criticise any use the government puts the military to because you used to serve in the army yourself.
Has it ever occured to you that this kind of close minded jingoism might have something to do with the way protests against American involvement in Vietnam turned nasty in the first place?

As for Phelps, he has been disrupting funerals with his usual gay bashing bullshit. He's doing the stuff you fear Sheehan may be foreboding, so why aren't you complaining about that fuckwit as well?

Ya know we're family, Pops, but it almost sounds like you're attacking our contitutional right to peacefully assemble. Isn't freedom what our soldiers are fighting for to begin with?
Yes, that's certainly one of the reasons.

No, I'm not "attacking" any constitutional right. I'm simply pointing out that there always seems to be a pattern to this sort of thing, and that the later stages of that pattern during the Vitenam War "protests" resulted in great harm to fine young men and women.

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.

Any tiny little amount of respect I had for Eutrusca just died with that idiotic statement. Disgusting.

Only if you sit where "the man" don't want you to sit.

You're perfectly free to sit anywere else, therefore you still have your freedom.




I wouldn't say anything if the police only checked demonstrants (could be dangerous, in front of the white house, to let many people with bags sit and wait for Mr. President to arrive), but why arrest them?
As long as cars can still drive past, where's the problem? Who has the right to tell me where I am allowed to sit in public places? It's as much my country as my politicians's.

Well, I am protesting this thread. Picture me sitting in it, just looking at all of you, not saying anything, but refusing to budge, taking up space, making you nervous...holding up a sign saying, "Shhh."
Silent protest would be nice. ;)

Silent protest would be nice. ;)
Unless you have someone reading these posts out loud for you, this IS silent :D

Yes, that's certainly one of the reasons.

No, I'm not "attacking" any constitutional right. I'm simply pointing out that there always seems to be a pattern to this sort of thing, and that the later stages of that pattern during the Vitenam War "protests" resulted in great harm to fine young men and women.
You're aware of my feelings about our boys and girls in the armed services, so you know I'd be on your side if anyone disrespected them in any way to forward their own misguided political agendas.

But it does disturb me when red tape interferes for whatever reason with our constitutional rights.

I wouldn't say anything if the police only checked demonstrants (could be dangerous, in front of the white house, to let many people with bags sit and wait for Mr. President to arrive), but why arrest them?
As long as cars can still drive past, where's the problem? Who has the right to tell me where I am allowed to sit in public places? It's as much my country as my politicians's.
No it isn't. Not since Bush started amending the constitution with bullshit like the patriot act it isn't. Weird that the American military is there to defend the constitution, but they don't have a problem with that, or fighting wars that the executive branch of the government have imposed without going through channels first. That's pretty unconstitutional, as I understand it.

Ya know we're family, Pops, but it almost sounds like you're attacking our contitutional right to peacefully assemble. Isn't freedom what our soldiers are fighting for to begin with?

It certainly should be! At the moment, it is not. But I suppose that if I were to go into that, it would be considered hijacking the thread, so I will just agree with you and let it go at that.

Yes, that's certainly one of the reasons.

No, I'm not "attacking" any constitutional right. I'm simply pointing out that there always seems to be a pattern to this sort of thing, and that the later stages of that pattern during the Vitenam War "protests" resulted in great harm to fine young men and women.

I think a pattern requires more than one instance, buddy. Oh, also, thanks for assuming that we hate our soldiers.

Well, I am protesting this thread. Picture me sitting in it, just looking at all of you, not saying anything, but refusing to budge, taking up space, making you nervous...holding up a sign saying, "Shhh."

I'm sorry, but there's a possibility that your protest could turn violent and ugly. Therefore I am going to have to order a large number of police on horseback to charge at you to ensure that this does not happen.

I love the fact that the White House spokesman came out with the standard "they have the right to protest" statement, despite them being arrested for expressing that right...

I think Sheehan is a moron, her kid joined of his own free will, and followed his orders of his own free will, as a recruit for the army, I think all she is doing is dishonoring her childs death, not helping anyone.

Hardly. Almost every city, town and burg in the US requires a parade permit. It's simply a matter of logistics and order. It's for the benefit of the "protestors" as much as it is for the remainder of the public and the authorities. Many "demonstrations" tend to erupt in violence. If the police aren't aware that a "demonstration" is going to take place, they can't block traffic or protect the "protestors."


protestors protesting for peace turn violent :D :D what a wonderful paradoxon

Imagine you want to protest against your government. But your government hates all forms of opposition and free thinking, they don't allow you to have a demonstration. Your fears and warnings for your nation remain unheard. You stay at home, waiting for your permission for the rest of your quiet life. :headbang:

But there are more ways to show one's protest - people distributed white ribbons over here and for weeks everybody was wearing them as a sign of protest... Do you need a permission for that, too? :confused:

The dishonorable Ms. Sheehan arrested for parking on White House lawn.
ahaha, only in America. Only in America does a clown lead the anti-war movement.

Any tiny little amount of respect I had for Eutrusca just died with that idiotic statement. Disgusting.
( shrug )

Unless you have someone reading these posts out loud for you, this IS silent :D
LOL! Oh, BROTHER! :D

How about ... typeless protest would be nice? :p

I have one question for all the anti-war protesters.

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?

Personally, I think theses are just anti-Bush demonstrations with a different name. Not that I have a problem with being anti-Bush, but come on, they could at least be genuine if not civil.
ahaha, only in America. Only in America does a clown lead the anti-war movement.
She doesn’t lead anything. She’s more of a mascot.

No it isn't. Not since Bush started amending the constitution with bullshit like the patriot act it isn't. Weird that the American military is there to defend the constitution, but they don't have a problem with that, or fighting wars that the executive branch of the government have imposed without going through channels first. That's pretty unconstitutional, as I understand it.


So what are you doing in front of your computer? Go outside! Go and sit down in front of the White House and don't move away until your rights are given back to you! Fight for your rights, because your government and your army surely won't do that for you.

I think a pattern requires more than one instance, buddy. Oh, also, thanks for assuming that we hate our soldiers.
Where, oh where, did I mention that anyone "hates" our soliders, Kemo-sabe?

All I'm interested in is preventing the kind of thing that happened during Vietnam, that's all.

People, I'm afraid Eutrusca is right. It's likely that the protest against the war will become more extreme, and will culminate in abuse of soldiers by radical protestors. It's sad but true.

But what Eutrusca didn't point out was another pattern: the devolving standards of the pro-war side of the debate. For Iraq as for Vietnam, the pro-war side started out by refuting the anti-war points and explaining the reasons for the war reasonably. But what has happened as with Vietnam, is that the pro-war side has resorted to screaming "traitors" and calling anti-war folks unpatriotic and seditious.

History may well repeat itself. My only hope is that the Iraqi democracy programme is backed by political will and does not fail. The West can't afford to fail Iraq.

Unless you have someone reading these posts out loud for you, this IS silent :D
You've broken your own boycott of this thread twice.

I have one question for all the anti-war protesters.

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?

Personally, I think theses are just anti-Bush demonstrations with a different name. Not that I have a problem with being anti-Bush, but come on, they could at least be genuine if not civil.
So true. As usual, you hit the bullseye, Undelia.

I'm sorry, but there's a possibility that your protest could turn violent and ugly. Therefore I am going to have to order a large number of police on horseback to charge at you to ensure that this does not happen.

I love the fact that the White House spokesman came out with the standard "they have the right to protest" statement, despite them being arrested for expressing that right...
SIGH! Let me try ONE MORE TIME: they weren't arrested for "protesting!" They were arrested because they violated the law, something they did with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Is that plain enough for you???

I think Sheehan is a moron, her kid joined of his own free will, and followed his orders of his own free will, as a recruit for the army, I think all she is doing is dishonoring her childs death, not helping anyone.
EXACTLY!

I have one question for all the anti-war protesters.

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?

Personally, I think theses are just anti-Bush demonstrations with a different name. Not that I have a problem with being anti-Bush, but come on, they could at least be genuine if not civil.

She doesn’t lead anything. She’s more of a mascot.

It's true that whether you agreed with the war to begin with, pulling out at this point would be wrong. I guess it may seem pointless to protest the war now, but Bush shouldn't get away with it that easily considering the utterly dishonest way he has handled the whole thing. I'd hate the idea that politicians can do whatever they want and people forget as soon as the decision has been made.

I boycott this thread. I don't care about this Sheehan woman.

Since I need you to know I'm boycotting it, I have to post in it. Which means I'm still contributing to it, in a way. So my boycott is going to start AFTER this post:).

lol, yeah, to post that you're boycotting it sort of defeats the purpose. hehe

I have one question for all the anti-war protesters.

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?

Personally, I think theses are just anti-Bush demonstrations with a different name. Not that I have a problem with being anti-Bush, but come on, they could at least be genuine if not civil.
I agree totally. Well said! :)

She doesn’t lead anything. She’s more of a mascot.
I'm just amazed that a sizeable number of anti-war people do not find her to be a total embarrassment. Calling New Orleans oppressed by its own military? Parking on the White House lawn like a typical gas-guzzler American. Is she some sort of wicked parody?

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?


They want to show what they think: the war was wrong (in their opinion, and in mine too, but probably not in yours)It was wrong to fight in Iraq. And they want their fellow cititzens to understand that.
Their protest has (a.o.) similar reasons like many Holocaust memorials today: Failures may never be forgotten. One can protest against past actions, too... :rolleyes:

SIGH! Let me try ONE MORE TIME: they weren't arrested for "protesting!" They were arrested because they violated the law, something they did with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Is that plain enough for you???
Sitting down in front of the white house is against the law now? That seems a bit stupid to me.

Originally Posted by Undelia
I have one question for all the anti-war protesters.

What’s the fucking point? The war has already been fought and won, and we are now in an occupation faze. What do they want us to do? Stop shooting back at insurgents? Leave Iraq? What?

Personally, I think theses are just anti-Bush demonstrations with a different name. Not that I have a problem with being anti-Bush, but come on, they could at least be genuine if not civil.

Yes, that's exactly what they are doing -- they didn't get their way in the election, and they hate President Bush so they have to bitch about something... so they chose the rebuilding of Iraq to sob over.

They want to show what they think: the war was wrong (in their opinion, and in mine too, but probably not in yours)It was wrong to fight in Iraq. And they want their fellow cititzens to understand that.
Their protest has (a.o.) similar reasons like many Holocaust memorials today: Failures may never be forgotten. One can protest against past actions, too... :rolleyes:
Oh horsecrap! There must be at least a thousand ways of protesting something you don't like without getting yourself arrested. I think the line in that article about the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan smiling as she was arrested speaks volumes about her motivation.

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.

The only spitting I have seen recently was by a veteran spitting on an anti-war protester. I'm sure you recall it as you were the one who posted the story and was so gleeful and supportive. Why is it okay for one group to do it and not another? Oh right, because you are part of the group that spits on anti-war protesters. Good job mr. hypocrite!

SIGH! Let me try ONE MORE TIME: they weren't arrested for "protesting!" They were arrested because they violated the law, something they did with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Is that plain enough for you???


You don't get arrested for speeding.
You don't get arrested for spraying graffitti.
And you should certainly not be arrested for sitting on a lawn.

SIGH! Let me try ONE MORE TIME: they weren't arrested for "protesting!" They were arrested because they violated the law, something they did with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Is that plain enough for you???

That's an interesting spin... They were arrested for violating a law against protesting without the correct permits. That's a pretty technical difference.

Oh horsecrap! There must be at least a thousand ways of protesting something you don't like without getting yourself arrested. I think the line in that article about the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan smiling as she was arrested speaks volumes about her motivation.
Rosa Parks got herself arrested (as did Martin Luther King Jr.) while protesting, does that make them a bunch of "dishonorable" protestors?

It's true that whether you agreed with the war to begin with, pulling out at this point would be wrong. I guess it may seem pointless to protest the war now, but Bush shouldn't get away with it that easily considering the utterly dishonest way he has handled the whole thing. I'd hate the idea that politicians can do whatever they want and people forget as soon as the decision has been made.
Right, but they could call their protests something other than anti-war.
How about, “Impeach Bush,” “End the Neo-Con Agenda,” “Bush Lied” or a less extreme, “Bush Made A Mistake”? At least then, the average guy on the street would have a better idea about what they are, in actuality, protesting and possible abuse against soldiers could be avoided.

I'm just amazed that a sizeable number of anti-war people do not find her to be a total embarrassment. Calling New Orleans oppressed by its own military? Parking on the White House lawn like a typical gas-guzzler American. Is she some sort of wicked parody?
By all accounts, she’s been a bit misbalanced her whole life.

Oh horsecrap! There must be at least a thousand ways of protesting something you don't like without getting yourself arrested. I think the line in that article about the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan smiling as she was arrested speaks volumes about her motivation.

I'm not well-informed about US-American laws. Could you please name sone legal (and effective) way of protesting?


You seem to be an enthusiastic opponent of Ms. Sheehan. I know very little about her, but from what I've heard she's a desperate, deeply hurt and psychologically traumatised person. If you don't like her actions, forgive her, taking under consideration the pain she has to go through in her private life. She does NOT represent the feelings of anti-war-protestors but rather the feelings of a woman who has lost a child in a brutal war.

So what are you doing in front of your computer? Go outside! Go and sit down in front of the White House and don't move away until your rights are given back to you! Fight for your rights, because your government and your army surely won't do that for you.
I don't live in America. As things stand at the moment, I'm quite glad about that. The spectacle of the hard right dismissing anybody who finds this nonsense in Iraq laughable as a traitor, then whining about an unreasonable attitude from marginalised protestors is truly disgusting.
I'm just glad the fawning catamite we're stuck with at number 10 has finally realised that history won't prove him right over propping the chimp up on this.

Rosa Parks got herself arrested (as did Martin Luther King Jr.) while protesting, does that make them a bunch of "dishonorable" protestors?

May I add "Mahatma Ghandi"?

Yes, that's exactly what they are doing -- they didn't get their way in the election, and they hate President Bush so they have to bitch about something... so they chose the rebuilding of Iraq to sob over.
The Democrats are a pro-war party! Why do you identify anti-war protestors with them? Is everyone you disagree with assumed to be a Democrat?

ahaha, only in America. Only in America does a clown lead the anti-war movement.
A clown's leading your government. Why expect any better from a woman who wouldn't be in the media spotlight in the first place if the chimp had taken ten minutes out of his busy schedule of hiding in his ranch and drinking on the quiet to feed her some bullshit?

May I add "Mahatma Ghandi"?
Ooh, ooh, I want to add the Separate Baptists of Virginia.

Ooh, ooh, I want to add the Separate Baptists of Virginia.

Ooo, ooo, George Fox!

Civil dissobediance is an honorable American tradition. Good for her.

And Eut, slippery slope aguments are rarely sound and never fair.

Ooo, ooo, George Fox!
For those who missed it, just because a protester gets arrested by the government they are protesting, it doesn’t make them wrong.

I wouldn’t classify this particular case as civil-disobedience because I don’t consider diving your car onto the White House Lawn or jumping a fence to be peaceful.

Ooh, ooh, I want to add the Separate Baptists of Virginia.

:confused: Who are they? What have they done? :confused:

I wouldn’t classify this particular case as civil-disobedience because I don’t consider diving your car onto the White House Lawn or jumping a fence to be peaceful.

Huh? I beg differ, Cindy Sheehan's actions were hardly violent.

Huh? I beg differ, Cindy Sheehan's actions were hardly violent.

If she's violent, she's no real pacifist. :gundge:

Sitting down in front of the white house is against the law now? That seems a bit stupid to me.

Loitering on the sidewalk in front of the white house is considered a security risk, ever since some guy opened fire on the whitehouse with a machine gun back during Clinton's term; therefore, nobody can loiter in that specific section of Washington D.C.

She was asked 3 times to move along, she refused to do so, this was a crimminal act. This is actually a common way of protesting and getting arrested, so common that I have read of cases where the 50 dollar fines are waived, this means she intentionally did this and knew that she would be arrested; she is by no means innocent in this, she knew what she was getting into.

The incident during Clinton's term.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/07/history.gun.incidents/

Look, Eut, I just don't think we need...

*trips over Sinuhue
*falls on ass
*breaks ass

God damnit! Who put this protester here? I swear to God, I'm gonna sue! How is your protesting gonna fix MY BROKEN ASS!?!?!


Oooh, you're right, it IS broken. It's got a crack right down the middle.

Strange how attacks on somebody's character have completely supplanted any discussion of the issues at stake, isn't it?

:confused: Who are they? What have they done? :confused:
They protested the official Anglican religion of the Virginia colony. Hundreds were arrested and a few died in prison. One was beaten to death, I beleive.
Huh? I beg differ, Cindy Sheehan's actions were hardly violent.
They were done rather aggressively. Compare her actions to the sit ins of the civil rights movement or to Gandhi's hunger strikes.

Forrest as usual I COMPLETELY support you in this stance.

This "woman" is dishonouring EVERYTHING her son stood for and believed in. He was not drafted, he was not forced to go against his beliefs. He had the sense of honour and duty to do what needed to be done, obviously he got that from his father not this B*&#h that would have us sit on the side lines while entire races are wiped out or enslaved and they continue to send their children to be suicide bombers with the gaol of wiping our way of life.

People who rant and rave against this or any other war do not know how harmful their attitudes are to our troops and benificial to the enimies moral and propoganda. You would think that the idiots would have learned from Vietnam and the MAJOR problems that soldiers had coming back ie: Drug use, harrassment from the misinformed, etc...

To this day I laugh at the morons that think that just because we did not find weapons of mass destruction in the parts of Iraq that we do control that there are none. With the constantly shifting dunes in the deserts you would be hard pressed tofind something you had hidden and knew exactly where to find it now imagine trying to find something buried deep beneath the dunes with no real landmarks, since they change on an hourly rate, and thousands of square miles to search! Or the exact opposite scenario they could be in the large mountain area that is still in the control of Saddam's people. Those mountains are honeycombed with caves that could be searched for years and still not even be touched. For those of you saying that we could just use a satellite wrong. To do this search you would need the ground penetrating radar satellite and to search the entire desert area of Iraq would take months or even more of dedicated search and it is needed for other projects. The satellite could also not do the search of the mountains so there is more manpower to do the search under good conditions ie: not under constant attack by those that are pissed they now have to share power if they ever choose to join the new democratic Iraq.

Meh. Why is she protesting again? And isnt bushy in texas or something?he is hiding somewhere...

The only spitting I have seen recently was by a veteran spitting on an anti-war protester. I'm sure you recall it as you were the one who posted the story and was so gleeful and supportive. Why is it okay for one group to do it and not another? Oh right, because you are part of the group that spits on anti-war protesters. Good job mr. hypocrite!
I will not be baited. Go "protest" to someone who gives a shit.

Oooh, you're right, it IS broken. It's got a crack right down the middle.

I know. And no one seems to care. :(

You don't get arrested for speeding.
You don't get arrested for spraying graffitti.
And you should certainly not be arrested for sitting on a lawn.

People most certainally have been arrested for speeding.
People most certainally have been arrested for graffitti.

Granted 99 times out of 100 they are not JAILED. Merely porcessed and fined/ticketed. Like Sheehan was.

And you sit in protest on MY lawn I'll shoot your bloody @&$e. I believe it is even more so needed in front of the White House in this day and age. It is so different than it was even a few years ago.

You don't get arrested for speeding.
You don't get arrested for spraying graffitti.
And you should certainly not be arrested for sitting on a lawn.
Did you read the article? They WANTED to be arrested!

That's an interesting spin... They were arrested for violating a law against protesting without the correct permits. That's a pretty technical difference.
That's the law for ya. Besides, as they indicated, that's what they wanted ... to get arrested. How could we not oblige them? :D

Strange how attacks on somebody's character have completely supplanted any discussion of the issues at stake, isn't it?
Some of those on this forum are just too likely to resort yo name calling!

Sitting down in front of the white house is against the law now? That seems a bit stupid to me.

Loitering in front of or blocking the sidewalk in front of the White House would always get you arrested, as far back as I can recall (Vietnam days), no matter if the president was there or not.

Besides, they knew that they would be arrested. That was the point of doing it. ;)

ok children, heres an idea lets just get all the right wing, and left wing nut bags together and have a gigantic dodgeball tournment, left wing wins we leave iraq, right wing wins we invade canada :p . either way lets agree not to have stupid threads like this anymore.

Rosa Parks got herself arrested (as did Martin Luther King Jr.) while protesting, does that make them a bunch of "dishonorable" protestors?
No. They weren't bulding their following on the dead bodies of their own sons. Nor were they building their reputation as protestors by slandering and endangering the very people who protect their right to protest.

And you sit in protest on MY lawn I'll shoot your bloody @&$e. I believe it is even more so needed in front of the White House in this day and age. It is so different than it was even a few years ago.

In Texas, you can legally do that too. I love this state. :D

By all accounts, she’s been a bit misbalanced her whole life.
She's a bit more than simply unblananced; she's demented and certifiable.

Forrest as usual I COMPLETELY support you in this stance.

This "woman" is dishonouring EVERYTHING her son stood for and believed in. He was not drafted, he was not forced to go against his beliefs. He had the sense of honour and duty to do what needed to be done, obviously he got that from his father not this B*&#h that would have us sit on the side lines while entire races are wiped out or enslaved and they continue to send their children to be suicide bombers with the gaol of wiping our way of life.

People who rant and rave against this or any other war do not know how harmful their attitudes are to our troops and benificial to the enimies moral and propoganda. You would think that the idiots would have learned from Vietnam and the MAJOR problems that soldiers had coming back ie: Drug use, harrassment from the misinformed, etc...

To this day I laugh at the morons that think that just because we did not find weapons of mass destruction in the parts of Iraq that we do control that there are none. With the constantly shifting dunes in the deserts you would be hard pressed tofind something you had hidden and knew exactly where to find it now imagine trying to find something buried deep beneath the dunes with no real landmarks, since they change on an hourly rate, and thousands of square miles to search! Or the exact opposite scenario they could be in the large mountain area that is still in the control of Saddam's people. Those mountains are honeycombed with caves that could be searched for years and still not even be touched. For those of you saying that we could just use a satellite wrong. To do this search you would need the ground penetrating radar satellite and to search the entire desert area of Iraq would take months or even more of dedicated search and it is needed for other projects. The satellite could also not do the search of the mountains so there is more manpower to do the search under good conditions ie: not under constant attack by those that are pissed they now have to share power if they ever choose to join the new democratic Iraq.

As a pacifist, I'd LOVE to answer, but:
1. I don't know where to start
2. I'm not sure if you'd listen to me
3. it's late and I'll go and get some sleep

So I'll leave and hope that there is another person out there supporting peace, tolerance and truth, who'll answer instead of me.

Good night.

ok children, heres an idea lets just get all the right wing, and left wing nut bags together and have a gigantic dodgeball tournment, left wing wins we leave iraq, right wing wins we invade canada :p . either way lets agree not to have stupid threads like this anymore.

Are you crazy!?!?!? Threads like this are why I even check the forums!

:rolleyes:

A clown's leading your government. Why expect any better from a woman who wouldn't be in the media spotlight in the first place if the chimp had taken ten minutes out of his busy schedule of hiding in his ranch and drinking on the quiet to feed her some bullshit?
The only "bullshit" being ladlled out here is coming from you and people like you. She already got some time with the President. May I suggest that should President Bush talk with every citizen with a gripe he would have time for nothing else?

ok children, heres an idea lets just get all the right wing, and left wing nut bags together and have a gigantic dodgeball tournment, left wing wins we leave iraq, right wing wins we invade canada :p . either way lets agree not to have stupid threads like this anymore.
Hey I support the war but I object to the invading Canada bit! Despite my disapointment and outright anger/hatred for our PM and our last PM.
Tell you what we in the West will seperate and take everything from the Bay and northern Quebec and you can invade (nuke) the rest!

This "woman" is ...

"woman"..not woman? Why, is she like some former East German shot putter or something? :p

Civil dissobediance is an honorable American tradition. Good for her.

And Eut, slippery slope aguments are rarely sound and never fair.
Where did I offer a "slippery slope" argument? All I indicated is that this is the same pattern followed by so-called "protestors" during Vietnam, a pattern which culminated in the disrespect and maltreatment of soldiers, and that I refuse to sit idly by if it happens again.

Huh? I beg differ, Cindy Sheehan's actions were hardly violent.
Who the hell said they were??? Jeeze! :(

I'd also like to point out that this woman never even raised her son. He was raised by his father and his stepmother. While I won't say that this diminishes her love for him at all, it does place a lot more suspicion on her motives in my book.

Did you notice how she got all upset that the hurricanes were getting more media than she was? Yeah she really cares about others.

Loitering on the sidewalk in front of the white house is considered a security risk, ever since some guy opened fire on the whitehouse with a machine gun back during Clinton's term; therefore, nobody can loiter in that specific section of Washington D.C.

She was asked 3 times to move along, she refused to do so, this was a crimminal act. This is actually a common way of protesting and getting arrested, so common that I have read of cases where the 50 dollar fines are waived, this means she intentionally did this and knew that she would be arrested; she is by no means innocent in this, she knew what she was getting into.

The incident during Clinton's term.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/07/history.gun.incidents/
Precisely!

Strange how attacks on somebody's character have completely supplanted any discussion of the issues at stake, isn't it?
Not at all. The "issue at stake" is the disrespect and maltreatment of soldiers, something I have stated time and time again that I will not sit idly by and allow to happen? What part of this do you not understand?

I'd also like to point out that this woman never even raised her son. He was raised by his father and his stepmother. While I won't say that this diminishes her love for him at all, it does place a lot more suspicion on her motives in my book.

Did you notice how she got all upset that the hurricanes were getting more media than she was? Yeah she really cares about others.

Side bit: Do you read Mercedes Lackey?

Cogent bit:

You make a very good point there.

As a pacifist, I'd LOVE to answer, but:
1. I don't know where to start
2. I'm not sure if you'd listen to me
3. it's late and I'll go and get some sleep

So I'll leave and hope that there is another person out there supporting peace, tolerance and truth, who'll answer instead of me.

Good night.
Good night! But I do usually listen, even if it sometimes takes a couple of days/weeks. I try to keep up but...
Most of what I have said is simple facts, despute if you can back it up, and the rest is obviously my opinion but no less or more valid than yours. If we could avoid war I would be all for it but unfortunately you sometimes need to punch out the school bully to end the problem since logic doesn't always work!

Forrest as usual I COMPLETELY support you in this stance.

This "woman" is dishonouring EVERYTHING her son stood for and believed in. He was not drafted, he was not forced to go against his beliefs. He had the sense of honour and duty to do what needed to be done, obviously he got that from his father not this B*&#h that would have us sit on the side lines while entire races are wiped out or enslaved and they continue to send their children to be suicide bombers with the gaol of wiping our way of life.

People who rant and rave against this or any other war do not know how harmful their attitudes are to our troops and benificial to the enimies moral and propoganda. You would think that the idiots would have learned from Vietnam and the MAJOR problems that soldiers had coming back ie: Drug use, harrassment from the misinformed, etc...
Apparently this is one of those lessons the left closes its eyes to.

Thanks for the boost. :)

Ah, where would Cindy Sheehan be without Eutrusca to keep us up to date on every little thing she does while lambasting her for being a media and attention whore.

Of course, in todays world protests and demonstrations need media attention, and that attention has to be grabbed, but if you do it and your not on the 'right side' your just a media whore.

I love that the protests are somehow less relevant if you make sure a lot of people hear it instead of just telling your neighbor or posting a comment.

I also love that we're 'cracking her code'-OMG, She totally wanted to be arrested!!!! We've read her book, that magnificent bastard!!!

Yeah, we all did. Civil Disobedience, in school. It, too, was about a war.

And as a few people have pointed out (and have been notably ignored) this pattern that Eutrusca (I won't bother addressing directly because it's just as likely to be notably ignored) is so determined to avoid has two parts to it, and he's playing his part to the letter.

This isn't some pattern from the Vietnam protests, that vague claim lost weight a while ago. What? Find a corralary between this specific event and a specific event from back then. Otherwise your just saying that all protests will lead to spiting on soldiers and that is so ridiculous as to not be entertained.

But hey, keep it up. If it wheren't for the right being all up in arms I'd never know what this lady was up to.

Not at all. The "issue at stake" is the disrespect and maltreatment of soldiers, something I have stated time and time again that I will not sit idly by and allow to happen? What part of this do you not understand?

Even if they are doing the wrong thing in your opinion? Is it a case of keep your mouth shut and silence is your acceptance of them doing those 'wrongs' in your name?

All i know, is that if someone was doing something in my name, and i didn't agree with it- i'd voice my opinion. If thats what you call 'disrespect' then thats your opinion- but not mine.

[not intended to flame or offend :fluffle: ]

Side bit: Do you read Mercedes Lackey?

What ever gave you that idea? ;) :D

Now how to I contact you off thread so we don't hijack it?

Not at all. The "issue at stake" is the disrespect and maltreatment of soldiers, something I have stated time and time again that I will not sit idly by and allow to happen? What part of this do you not understand?
I guess the part where someone is actually doing that, instead of your fear that someone might.

I'd also like to point out that this woman never even raised her son. He was raised by his father and his stepmother. While I won't say that this diminishes her love for him at all, it does place a lot more suspicion on her motives in my book.

Did you notice how she got all upset that the hurricanes were getting more media than she was? Yeah she really cares about others.
She didn't just get upset, she called the soldiers sent to help in New Orleans "an occupying force!" :(

What ever gave you that idea? ;) :D

Now how to I contact you off thread so we don't hijack it?

MSN: Pmmiehm@hotmail

AIM: OPwhiteguy

TG, or just about whatever else you feel like picking...

Even if they are doing the wrong thing in your opinion? Is it a case of keep your mouth shut and silence is your acceptance of them doing those 'wrongs' in your name?

All i know, is that if someone was doing something in my name, and i didn't agree with it- i'd voice my opinion. If thats what you call 'disrespect' then thats your opinion- but not mine.

[not intended to flame or offend :fluffle: ]
Ok, fair enough. I disagree with what the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is doing. I'm registering my disagreement by posting on here. I don't seek publicity. I don't give a shit about "reputation," and I for damned sure wouldn't use my dead son's body as a stepping stone! :mad:

If I remember correctly the rule put in place about the White House pretty much states that you can not drive or walk within 10-16(not sure which) feet of the sidewalk. They not only were within the sidewalk area one of the jumped the fence. And as mentioned earlier this rule was put into place during Clintons term.

As for Sheehan, she's a MEDIA WHORE. Her only reason to do anything she has done is for media coverage for HERSELF, not the anti-war peace movement. What she said about the National Guard in New Orleans shows this. The victims of Katrina(those selfish bastards[meant to be ironic for you hot heads out there]) were taking her limelite away and she couldn't have that, so she had to say something to shock people.

I'd also like to point out that this woman never even raised her son. He was raised by his father and his stepmother. While I won't say that this diminishes her love for him at all, it does place a lot more suspicion on her motives in my book.

Did you notice how she got all upset that the hurricanes were getting more media than she was? Yeah she really cares about others.
This is a major part of the reasons for classifying her as a "woman". Even animals care more for their chikdren than getting attention for themselves! I would class her as a bloom'n nutjob, psyco, social devient... I have seen no evidence of humanity in her other than what she can use to get more attention!

A human is more concerned with the suffering of others to help them not to use it to fill his/her empty life.

Side bit: Do you read Mercedes Lackey?

Cogent bit:

You make a very good point there.
I love Mercedes Lackey! She is a great author. But what is your point? If you want to talk about her just TG me or start a thread about it!

This is a major part of the reasons for classifying her as a "woman". Even animals care more for their chikdren than getting attention for themselves! I would class her as a bloom'n nutjob, psyco, social devient... I have seen no evidence of humanity in her other than what she can use to get more attention!

A human is more concerned with the suffering of others to help them not to use it to fill his/her empty life.

Fairly speaking, unless you have lost your child, someone that grew inside of you for nine months and that you cradled in your arms at birth- you do not have a right to call her those names. You are just attacking her person noe, having crossed over from her beliefs or stance. She is a human, and lost her baby boy. It doesn't matter wether you agree with her- it is the worst possible feeling on this earth :(

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ok, fair enough. I disagree with what the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is doing. I'm registering my disagreement by posting on here. I don't seek publicity. I don't give a shit about "reputation," and I for damned sure wouldn't use my dead son's body as a stepping stone! :mad:
Thats fair enough. You are both using your rights to express what you feel in a free society- that's all.

Personally and honestly, i don't care about either Ms. Sheehan's or your opinions. I really don't...

(now why in the hell did i bother posting in here at all.... :confused: )
*scratchs head*

Yeah, we all did. Civil Disobedience, in school. It, too, was about a war.

This isn't some pattern from the Vietnam protests, that vague claim lost weight a while ago. What? Find a corralary between this specific event and a specific event from back then. Otherwise your just saying that all protests will lead to spiting on soldiers and that is so ridiculous as to not be entertained.
Obviously you have missed the point! The Vietnam protest began as a small group too and grew outward since it met little to no resistance. The point Forrest and others, like myself, are trying to do is get the resistance up so that when these Honourable and valuable men and women get home they are welcomed with open arms and treated like the heros they are not like some leppers!

Maybe you should go back and read the book again and this time look for the meaning that the author intended.

Even if they are doing the wrong thing in your opinion? Is it a case of keep your mouth shut and silence is your acceptance of them doing those 'wrongs' in your name?

All i know, is that if someone was doing something in my name, and i didn't agree with it- i'd voice my opinion. If thats what you call 'disrespect' then thats your opinion- but not mine.

[not intended to flame or offend :fluffle: ]
People like you are rare unfortunately. Most of those who are objecting to the war are taking it out on the soldiers instead of voicing their opinion and stopping there. Even these "evil" soldiers would accept and respect you and your opinion if you just stop there. Unfortunately most are not worthy of any respect because of their way of displaying their attitude!

Fairly speaking, unless you have lost your child, someone that grew inside of you for nine months and that you cradled in your arms at birth- you do not have a right to call her those names. You are just attacking her person noe, having crossed over from her beliefs or stance. She is a human, and lost her baby boy. It doesn't matter wether you agree with her- it is the worst possible feeling on this earth :(

You should be ashamed of yourself.

*Is ashamed of himself...*

Oop, got over that pretty damn quick.

Anyway, her "humanity" is questionable, she doesn't seem to care much at all for the suffering humans in New Orleans, or anywhere else for that matter, from my perspective all she cares about is the fact that a son she never even raised is dead, she has no real connections with the kid, so I can't give her argument much credence.

People like you are rare unfortunately. Most of those who are objecting to the war are taking it out on the soldiers instead of voicing their opinion and stopping there. Even these "evil" soldiers would accept and respect you and your opinion if you just stop there. Unfortunately most are not worthy of any respect because of their way of displaying their attitude!

Well they ain't my troops- i'm not a US citizen- but i was always haunted by the stories of the Allied/Russian soldiers and the German soldiers- they tell simliar stories.

In the end, under the uniforms- they are just people- doing their jobs- not agreeing with what they had to do, but having to do it anyway.

A lot of people don't 'hate' the soldiers- they pity them. They 'hate' the people who sent them there to die. :( I pity them to.

COMMENTARY ad nauseaum.
Sorry to take you out of context but I do agree that these continual anti-Sheehan threads are somewhat sickening. :eek:

"The whole world is watching."
The most relevant part of the whole article.

I wonder what kind of dumbocracy will be installed in Iraq?

I am sure Georgie boy feels safer now that his biggest threat has been thrown in jail?

Those voicing their opinions in opposition to this war have their rights. They are terribly misinformed, but they have the right. They however have no right to break the right. I'm happy she is behind bars for breaking the law.

Meh ... and Nathan Hale was arrested and executed by the British and he's one of the US's great heroes.

So ... she got arrested. She'll pay her fine and be right back on the White House lawn. Deal.

I'm happy she is behind bars for breaking the law.

It's only a midemeanor. She'll be back in no time.

It's only a midemeanor. She'll be back in no time.

Ah.

Well, she'll be back outside using her son as a political tool. Great.

Fairly speaking, unless you have lost your child, someone that grew inside of you for nine months and that you cradled in your arms at birth- you do not have a right to call her those names. You are just attacking her person noe, having crossed over from her beliefs or stance. She is a human, and lost her baby boy. It doesn't matter wether you agree with her- it is the worst possible feeling on this earth :(

You should be ashamed of yourself.
I have been with my wife through both of her pregnancies, having been on forced medical leave since right after my oldests conception, and bonded with both my boys from before they were born. I can call her those names because ANY loving and dedicated parent will NOT USE THEIR CHILD TO PROMOTE THEMSELVES! She is no different than those parents that keep/make their children sick so they can gain attention for themselves! And that is a medically recognized mental disease!

She and any like her need to be institutionalized, PERIOD! She has disrespected EVERYTHING that her son was and chose to be! I will not be ashamed of having NO respect for someone like this!

And trust me I have an idea of the pain of loosing close to me! My fiance died in a plane crash that killed her and her mother just after we became engaged.

Well, she'll be back outside using her son as a political tool. Great.

She running for public office or something?

Anyway ... I'm sure her son doesn't mind.

She and any like her need to be institutionalized, PERIOD! She has disrespected EVERYTHING that her son was and chose to be!

And you have some proof of this from Casey?

Oh but wait ...

And trust me I have an idea of the pain of loosing close to me! My fiance died in a plane crash that killed her and her mother just after we became engaged.

You just invoked your dead fiance and her mother to prove your point. That makes you .... Asshole Hypocrite of the Day. You'll get the plaque in the mail.

And trust me I have an idea of the pain of loosing close to me! My fiance died in a plane crash that killed her and her mother just after we became engaged.
Well, i am sorry for that.

If someone started spouting off about how she was a whore, psycho, nutjob, bitch etc etc for her beliefs, you would not react kindly - regardless of whether you agreed with her or not. Its not proper- attack her points of view, her political beliefs- but not her person.

No one has the right to call my mother a bitch, whore, psycho et al for her political beliefs. Personal attacks don't make your argument stronger.

She running for public office or something?

Anyway ... I'm sure her son doesn't mind.

That's not what I meant. I meant that she is using him for political purposes and for PR. She sickens me.

Meh ... and Nathan Hale was arrested and executed by the British and he's one of the US's great heroes.

So ... she got arrested. She'll pay her fine and be right back on the White House lawn. Deal.
Happy to see that you survived Rita! did you post in your update thread?

Have you seen the garbage her and her friends spout on TV? I'm anti-war but man. These people are insane. They are so radical. If people like them took power... I don't even want to think about it...

Happy to see that you survived Rita! did you post in your update thread?

Yeah I believe so. I can't remember.

Unfortunately, now we're in a horrible heat wave thanks various pressure systems. Ugh! It's late Septemeber! It's not supposed to be 105!!!!

[/threadjack]

You just invoked your dead fiance and her mother to prove your point. That makes you .... Asshole Hypocrite of the Day. You'll get the plaque in the mail.
You brought her into play by saying I had no right to say anything since I haven't lost anyone (child specificly) I mentioned her to show that I have felt that kind of pain and to help me deal with her loss, as I must everyday. If I don't deal with her loss I can not give my all to my present marriage.

Have you seen the garbage her and her friends spout on TV? I'm anti-war but man. These people are insane. They are so radical. If people like them took power... I don't even want to think about it...

They are just stupid. I don't really pay much attention to her. Afterall, I got a double hit this past month. Katrina hit my two relatives in New Orleans and they fled to.. guess where..Galveston. Where my grandmother has a house. I got more important things to worry about that then that sensational twat, Cindy, on TV. She just wants her five minutes.

That's not what I meant. I meant that she is using him for political purposes and for PR. She sickens me.

I use my kids for political purposes and PR all the time. Every parent does. We invoke our children when trying to get something done because it can put a face on what you're trying to elaborate.

For example, I recently had a bout with the local school district because there was a class project for Black History Month and my daughter chose as her subject Malcolm X (ElHajj Malik). She did a great project and turned it in and the Principle of the school said no. The only clear basis was because Malcolm X, while a civil rights leader and hero to Muslims the world over, was not Christian (speculated).

I not only had to invoke my own kids, but future generations of my grandchildren to fight that battle. We won. The point, though, is that I had to invoke my children. It wasn't my project. It wasn't for me. It was for them.

Cindy Sheehan is invoking her dead son to try to help the thousands of others out there who have living children imbedded in the quagmire that is Iraq.

I promise you ... Casey doesn't mind.

You brought her into play by saying I had no right to say anything since I haven't lost anyone (child specificly) I mentioned her to show that I have felt that kind of pain and to help me deal with her loss, as I must everyday. If I don't deal with her loss I can not give my all to my present marriage.
No he didn't- I did... (and i'm regretting veering off on that tangent :headbang: )

You brought her into play by saying I had no right to say anything since I haven't lost anyone (child specificly) I mentioned her to show that I have felt that kind of pain and to help me deal with her loss, as I must everyday. If I don't deal with her loss I can not give my all to my present marriage.

No ... I didn't. I think you have every right to speak of anything, even if you've never personally experienced it. However, you did do exactly what Cindy Sheehan did: You invoked deceased loved ones in order to lend creedence to your stance.

Anything you call her for doing so is that which you must now call yourself.

I use my kids for political purposes and PR all the time. Every parent does. We invoke our children when trying to get something done because it can put a face on what you're trying to elaborate.

Yeah but do you use them for bashing soldiers like what Sheehan is doing?


Cindy Sheehan is invoking her dead son to try to help the thousands of others out there who have living children imbedded in the quagmire that is Iraq.

No she's not. In fact she is fucking them over, and putting our troops in even more danger. She's giving the enemy reason to fight. If anything, I think Zarqawi has a picture of her and is masturbating to it. Quagmire? HAHAHAHAHAH... typical. :rolleyes:

If anything, I think Zarqawi has a picture of her and is masturbating to it. Quagmire? HAHAHAHAHAH... typical. :rolleyes:

Nice man. Good argument.

*clap...clap*

No she's not. In fact she is fucking them over, and putting our troops in even more danger. She's giving the enemy reason to fight. If anything, I think Zarqawi has a picture of her and is masturbating to it. Quagmire? HAHAHAHAHAH... typical. :rolleyes:
THat's rediculous. They would be fighting anyways, whether or not she was protesting.

That thing about masturbating was a joke. People often compare me to Berlusconi....

THat's rediculous. They would be fighting anyways, whether or not she was protesting.

Yeah, but you realize that Sheehan is giving more people a reason to join the ranks of Al Qaeda under Zarqawi? She is giving the image that this nation is weak.

Yeah but do you use them for bashing soldiers like what Sheehan is doing?

I've never once seen Sheehan bashing soldiers. If you could provide a link to some sources, it would be nice.

No she's not. In fact she is fucking them over, and putting our troops in even more danger.

It's a sad military that will forget its training because a dissident speaks. I think the soldiers will be fine.

She's giving the enemy reason to fight.

Do you honestly think they didn't already have a reason? She isn't emboldening them ... these are people who were already completely prepared to go into this war and have absolutely zero fear of death. They were emboldened enough from the get go and will continue to be for a long, long time.

If anything, I think Zarqawi has a picture of her and is masturbating to it.

Pure speculation and unwarranted to intelligent discussion.

Quagmire? HAHAHAHAHAH... typical. :rolleyes:

Typical of what?

She is giving the image that this nation is weak.


.....How.....?

She's a bit more than simply unblananced; she's demented and certifiable.

So Sayeth the Hero of the Bushevik Revolution.

And yet you get all whiny and defensive when someone gets personal against you.

Please. Centrist my ass.

I've never once seen Sheehan bashing soldiers. If you could provide a link to some sources, it would be nice.

Uh, her protesting? It is all over the news.


It's a sad military that will forget its training because a dissident speaks. I think the soldiers will be fine.

The soldiers will do fine, but I don't think it is good for them if they see her on TV spewing her crap.

Do you honestly think they didn't already have a reason? She isn't emboldening them ...

Prove it.

They were emboldened enough from the get go and will continue to be for a long, long time.

Yep, but I honestly think Sheehan is helping them recruit more... giving them more reasons.

Pure speculation and unwarranted to intelligent discussion.

It was a joke... my humor is often abrasive, and that is why I said.. quite a few people compare me to Silvio Berlusconi..

Typical of what?

Typical of a misinformed anti-war argument.

People like you are rare unfortunately. Most of those who are objecting to the war are taking it out on the soldiers instead of voicing their opinion and stopping there. Even these "evil" soldiers would accept and respect you and your opinion if you just stop there. Unfortunately most are not worthy of any respect because of their way of displaying their attitude!

Sorry, but this is pure bollocks. Every single time I have seen someone oppose the war they've made it very clear that they are criticising the government, and those at the top that made the decision to invade. I haven't seen one personal attack on the soldiers.

I really can't believe how worked up people are getting about this issue. I'm guessing that allegations of Cindy Sheehan eating human flesh in Satanic rituals aren't too far off. Maybe she's the ghoulish, demonic bitch that you say she is, or maybe she thinks her son died for a really shitty reason. If so, it's not too unusual that she would try and protest in a way that gets as much attention as possible. I really don't care either way...

She is giving the image that this nation is weak.

How? It is by virtue of the fact that we can dissent in our country is the fundamental basis of its strength!

Would you have had Nathan Hale just "put up and shut up"?

How about Susan Anthony?

How about Martin Luther King, jr.?

How about Alan Freed?

How about it? Where do you draw the "put up and shut up" line through the US Constitution?

No ... I didn't. I think you have every right to speak of anything, even if you've never personally experienced it. However, you did do exactly what Cindy Sheehan did: You invoked deceased loved ones in order to lend creedence to your stance.

Anything you call her for doing so is that which you must now call yourself.
There is a Major dif. in what you and I did vs what she did.

I was essentialy asked and I told.

You used your children because you were stepping in to fight the battle they could not finish themselves,

If she had already been in the anti-war and responded to people questioning her right to be anti-war and them brought up her son that would be differnt than what she is doing. If she really wanted to fight his fight for him she should join up and head to Iraq!.

And trust me, I don't know why I'm talking about her. I'm not getting worked up. I'm just under a lot of stress about the hurricanes. She is on like page 20 with the advertisements selling used goods if I had a newspaper. She isn't important. Now I must get to class. Good day.

How? It is by virtue of the fact that we can dissent in our country is the fundamental basis of its strength!

Would you have had Nathan Hale just "put up and shut up"?

How about Susan Anthony?

How about Martin Luther King, jr.?

How about Alan Freed?

How about it? Where do you draw the "put up and shut up" line through the US Constitution?

I have a photo of MLK in my room.

I have no problem with her protesting, but this is my own opinion. I have a right to voice my own opinion.. right?

And I certainly am not advocating repression. If her right to voice her own opinion was threatened, I would be the first to say something against that threat! SHE HAS A RIGHT TO VOICE HER OPINION, NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS AND STUPID IT MAY BE.

Uh, her protesting? It is all over the news.

So, in saying so, you're spitting on every soldier who has ever taken the oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign *and* domestic, and has fought and died throughout the history of this Nation so that those freedoms my be preserved.

How does that make you any better than her?

She has the right to protest. She has the right to peaceably assemble. She has the right to petition the government for change. She has the right to speak.

Why are you trying so hard to take that from her when so many have fought so hard so that she can keep it?


Typical of a misinformed anti-war argument.

Misinformed ... mmm ... I'm pretty sure I read the same news you do. It's why I've asked for specifics on her denouncing soldiers. Bush? Oh sure ... all the time ... I do it myself. The soldiers? Never seen it from her.

If you think I am misinformed, inform me. Do it intelligently and without malice and I shall listen with an open mind and weigh carefully the evidence presented. A rolling of the eyes and a "typical" does not a sound argument make.

You used your children because you were stepping in to fight the battle they could not finish themselves,

If she had already been in the anti-war and responded to people questioning her right to be anti-war and them brought up her son that would be differnt than what she is doing. If she really wanted to fight his fight for him she should join up and head to Iraq!.

Much of it depends. We don't know what Cindy was like before. Maybe she implored her son not to join. Maybe she was vehemently protesting the war prior to her son's death. Perhaps it's just that the media didn't pick up on her until she'd already spent a couple of weeks in Crawford.

We also do not know what Casey's battle was. Maybe he joined up and went to Iraq to make a difference. To try to bring something in that would get his fellow soldiers home ... soon.

Maybe Cindy has taken up her son's mantle in the only way she is eligable. She cannot enlist as she is too old, but she can use her voice.

Nobody here knew Casey, so anything concerning him is pure speculation.

I applaud what Cindy is doing and I would do the same.

How? It is by virtue of the fact that we can dissent in our country is the fundamental basis of its strength!

Would you have had Nathan Hale just "put up and shut up"?

How about Susan Anthony?

How about Martin Luther King, jr.?

How about Alan Freed?

How about it? Where do you draw the "put up and shut up" line through the US Constitution?
Do you really think that the Islamic terrorist really have studied American histry and have any clue as to who these people are? People like her protested Vietnam too and while the soldiers did not forget their training they did start using drugs and became extremely demoralized! Do you want this to happen in Iraq? Demoralizing our troops has the side effect of making them careless, increasing the chance of their death and maybe others, and showing the enemies that they have a chance to win!

She has the right to protest. She has the right to peaceably assemble. She has the right to petition the government for change. She has the right to speak.

Why are you trying so hard to take that from her when so many have fought so hard so that she can keep it?

You better stop accusing me of trying to silence her or anyone else. That is a very serious accusation.

Cindy is not unique in her protest. Check this out:

Why mothers push for peace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4144532.stm)

Conscience

There is a long tradition of bereaved mothers campaigning for peace, both in the US and elsewhere in the world.

And while the poignancy of their protest inevitably attracts public attention, their campaigns have had mixed outcomes.

The mothers of Russian soldiers have tried to mediate in the Chechen dispute
The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia, a human rights organisation, has been campaigning against conscription and the war in Chechnya for years.

The group, which has become a bit of a thorn in the government's side and attracted international attention, met Chechen rebel representatives in London this year in an effort to end the decade-long war.

The Russian government, however, expressed much scepticism.

And in Argentina, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo continue their decades-old marches in Buenos Aires on behalf of loved ones abducted by Argentina's 1976-1983 military regime.

The women, whose children had been "disappeared", became a force to be reckoned with, playing a significant role in the eventual collapse of the military regime.

They no longer believe that the "disappeared" are alive but are determined to keep their names in the public eye in the hope that those responsible for the crimes will one day be brought to justice.

Instinctive

So what is it that turns maternal grief into a political force?

"There is a tiger-mother in most of us women, something that says 'don't put my son or my daughter in this position'," says Elisabeth Rehn former defence minister of Finland and former adviser with the UN department for peace keeping.

A few years ago, Ms Rehn visited 14 war zones and compiled a wide-ranging UN report on women and conflict.

The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo have never given up
"Women very much take on the burden of the push for peace. Men have other agendas, such as power and position. And, when mothers become desperate they take stronger steps.

"Mothers have been touched by what the war really means. Men see war in a different way. They argue that there will always be victims and that sacrifices have to be made for the country."

Helen Rappaport, author of An Encyclopaedia of Women Social Reformers says there is no doubt that it is instinctive in most women to be conciliators and urge co-operation and restraint.

"It comes down to a natural sexual difference. Historically, men made the war and women stayed at home."

Ms Rappaport, who also lectures on the subject of women and social reform says that women tend to get the compassion vote when they campaign for peace but are not really taken seriously by governments.

"Historically, there have been some extraordinary women who have stood up to protest against war. But, largely, while women provoke sympathy or empathy, they have not had much success at collective campaigning for peace."

Four Mothers

Ms Rehn agrees. "Some government allow things from women that they wouldn't allow from men because they don't see them as a serious threat. The Russian government, for example, doesn't see the Russian Mothers as that much of a threat."

From the beginning, it was so shocking to the Israeli public that it was mothers who were demanding answers from the government

Linda Ben Zvi, former campaigner

There are, or course, examples of mothers who have been successful in their goals.

One such was the Israeli grassroots group called the Four Mothers, which is widely credited with playing a significant part in shaping Israeli public opinion towards pulling the military out of Lebanon in 2000.

The group was set up in 1997 soon after two helicopters flying to Lebanon collided, killing all 73 personnel on board.

The mothers, who had sons who had been either killed or wounded in Lebanon, fanned out across the country campaigning for a pullout.

The Four Mothers gained immediate media attention and their numbers quickly swelled.

However, they were dismissed by the military and political establishment as either too emotional or unable to grasp the security concerns.

That is until Ehud Barak defeated the then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an election in 1999.

Within days, Mr Barak, who had campaigned for a pullout from Lebanon, met with Four Mothers and promised that all troops would be home by the end of July 2000.

The Jerusalem Post hailed them at the time as "one of the most successful grassroots movements in Israeli history."

"From the beginning, it was so shocking to the Israeli public that it was mothers who were demanding answers from the government," said Linda Ben Zvi, a leading member of the group at the time.

"Mothers were supposed to make the schnitzel and hand- wash the uniforms and play the passive role."

Go gettem' Cindy!!

You better stop accusing me of trying to silence her or anyone else. That is a very serious accusation.

You are slapping labels on her which state that she is dishonoring the soldiers and emboldening the enemy, which borderlines on an accusation of treason.

You even said you were happy she's behind bars, which, does effectively silence her for the time being.

Do you really think that the Islamic terrorist really have studied American histry and have any clue as to who these people are? People like her protested Vietnam too and while the soldiers did not forget their training they did start using drugs and became extremely demoralized! Do you want this to happen in Iraq? Demoralizing our troops has the side effect of making them careless, increasing the chance of their death and maybe others, and showing the enemies that they have a chance to win!
Thats the most tenuous link to date!

Do you really think 'Islamic terrorists' give a f**k who Sheehan is? They have enough reasons to attack US troops!

Terrorist 1:*flicks through satellite T.V.*
SSSSHHH! Ssshhhh- guys! That Cindy Sheehan one is on CNN again... quiet- she might say something inspirational that we desperately need to keep on fighting..

Terrorist 2:*Sniff* Without her, we'd have NO reason to keep on fighting... God bless her cotton socks...

Edit: and by the by- HISTORY shows them they can win. Not her- HISTORY.

You are slapping labels on her which state that she is dishonoring the soldiers and emboldening the enemy, which borderlines on an accusation of treason.

You even said you were happy she's behind bars, which, does effectively silence her for the time being.

I think she is dishonoring the soldiers and is emboldening the enemy. And that's my opinion. Can I hold my opinion, or in your reality, only nutcases like Sheehan can?

I said I am happy that she got fined (she obviously didn't get thrown behind bars) for breaking the law.

Do you really think that the Islamic terrorist really have studied American histry and have any clue as to who these people are?

You'd be surprised. That whole "know your enemy" is in Qur'an. They know more about us than you may be prepared to believe. Why do you think this war is *still* going on? You, and a lot of people, may be underestimating those who fight for what they believe to be the cause of Allah.

I know ... I am Muslim, ya know.

People like her protested Vietnam too and while the soldiers did not forget their training they did start using drugs and became extremely demoralized!

Bit different. In Vietnam, the soldiers were being protested directly. I can see how that would have a demoralizing effect. Also, they weren't being recycled as units, but as individuals. The whole structure of the US Military was different. In Vietnam, there was also no clear objective and no real plan to get out of there (wait, now this is starting to sound familiar, but that familiarity is not Sheehan's fault, it's the people who are running this campaign).

Do you want this to happen in Iraq?

Nope.

Demoralizing our troops has the side effect of making them careless, increasing the chance of their death and maybe others, and showing the enemies that they have a chance to win!

The enemy already believes they have a chance to win and not because of Sheehan. You have to understand the mind of the Muslim soldier.

100% of the population of the United States could be 100% behind this war and express it vocally on a daily basis and the ones we are fighting would still not be deterred. Pretty much everyone in the US was for WWII .... but the Nazis weren't deterred in the slightest, now were they?

However, silencing people like Sheehan would show very readily that the US is built on a shakey foundation and that Democracy leads to Tyranny.

However, silencing people like Sheehan would show very readily that the US is built on a shakey foundation and that Democracy leads to Tyranny.
No shit Sherlock!!

I think she is dishonoring the soldiers and is emboldening the enemy. And that's my opinion. Can I hold my opinion, or in your reality, only nutcases like Sheehan can?

Of course you can have that opinion and you can state it. The fact that you hold it when given evidence to the contrary is a little disturbing, but that's the way it goes.

There is nothing wrong with changing ones opinion in light of facts. I realise we've spent the last 8 years being told that that's "flip floppery", but it really isn't. It's called "learning", something you're familiar with as you said you had to go to class. :p

I said I am happy that she got fined (she obviously didn't get thrown behind bars) for breaking the law.

Actually, you did use the term "behind bars" .... post #122 in this thread.

No shit Sherlock!!

Quiet, you. We're on the same side. :p

You even said you were happy she's behind bars, which, does effectively silence her for the time being.
She isn't behind bars. She was arrested, processed, and released.

The enemy already believes they have a chance to win and not because of Sheehan. You have to understand the mind of the Muslim soldier.


Those baby-killers aren't soldiers, they are scum, pure and simple.

I am glad to see that you have finally admitted that they are muslims however.

You also have to understand that I do not place US soldiers on a pedestal and believe them above reproach.

If anyone is emboldening the enemy, it's US Soldiers like Pfc. Lynndie England and Cpl. Charles Graner.

Where is the outrage against them for stirring up an already embittered hornets nest?

Not one thread on them in the first 5 pages of this General Forum. There are 6 threads on Cindy Sheehan and her "atrocities".

Those baby-killers aren't soldiers, they are scum, pure and simple.

I am glad to see that you have finally admitted that they are muslims however.
Baby killers? You know i hate to point this out- but i'm sure in the bombardment of Fallujah and other such places, children were also killed by the US military.
Its irrelevant whether it was intentional or 'collateral damage'- they're dead.

Those baby-killers aren't soldiers, they are scum, pure and simple. I am glad to see that you have finally admitted that they are muslims however.

No, I am not admitting they're Muslims. They aren't. They believe they are and, thus, should act in accordance with how Qur'an says they should act as soldiers.

They do not act as such except in one way: continuance.

When in a state of war, every Muslim soldier is to fight, fight hard, ignoring their own death, fearing nothing but Allah. This war continues brutally and unceasing until the enemy seeks diplomacy or every last Muslim soldier is wiped out.

That is how these people are fighting their side of this war. This war will not be over until every one of them are dead or until a US leader steps up and says, "ok ... let's talk".

Baby killers? You know i hate to point this out- but i'm sure in the bombardment of Fallujah and other such places, children were also killed by the US military.
Its irrelevant whether it was intentional or 'collateral damage'- they're dead.

So there is no difference between murder manslaughter and criminally negligent homocide?

Of course there is a difference.

So there is no difference between murder manslaughter and criminally negligent homocide?

Of course there is a difference.
In war? No.

They're still dead- but i'm sure thats great comfort to their mothers and fathers.

"Whoops- sorry, it was criminal negligence".

I was merely pointing out that both sides have taken innocents.

A (mythical) conversation in the whitehouse...


Karl: Time for another speech GW. Public opinion is slipping!
GW: Which one should we use today Karl? The one where I blame God and then ask people to pray to him?
Karl: Not the hurricane you idiot! Iraq!
GW: Oooooohhhh good! I've almost got all those ones memorized!
KArl: Really? Finally?
GW: Sure! Here, give it a listen:

*ahem*

"9-11!!!! 9-11!!!!!"
"The enemy is still out there!"
"They attack us because they hate our..

(Secret Service dude enters the Oval office)

SS dude: Mr. President!
GW: Oh what the hell is it now?
SS: It's that Sheehan woman again sir.
GW: Can't this wait? I was on a roll!
SS: No sir. She's here.
GW: Where?!

*his eyes dart around nervously as he looks for escape routes*

SS: Not IN here sir. Outside sir. Protesting.
GW: Jesus H. F-ing Christo. Can't somebody shut that damn woman up?
SS: Yes sir, we can.
GW: Really?
SS: Yes sir. Under the law in DC anyone protesting without a permit can be arrested.
GW: Does she have one?
SS: No sir.
GW: Well then arrest the bitch! Slap her in jail and don't let her out until after the next presdent gets innaugurated!
SS: Don't think we can hold her that long sir.
GW: Well, just give me a week's break from that bitch!
SS: yes sir.

(Secret Service dude leaves)

GW: Now where was I?

Oh yes.


"They attack us because they hate our freedoms!"

How was that Karl?


Karl: Right on the money George!


:D

No, I am not admitting they're Muslims. They aren't. They believe they are and, thus, should act in accordance with how Qur'an says they should act as soldiers.

They do not act as such except in one way: continuance.

When in a state of war, every Muslim soldier is to fight, fight hard, ignoring their own death, fearing nothing but Allah. This war continues brutally and unceasing until the enemy seeks diplomacy or every last Muslim soldier is wiped out.

That is how these people are fighting their side of this war. This war will not be over until every one of them are dead or until a US leader steps up and says, "ok ... let's talk".

If they are not muslims, understanding the "mind of a muslim" soldier is irrelevant. If they aren't muslims, then any predictions about which bits of the Koran they adhere to is idle speculation. Therefore pointless and not worth bringing up in the first place.

In war? No.

They're still dead- but i'm sure thats great comfort to their mothers and fathers.

"Whoops- sorry, it was criminal negligence".

I was merely pointing out that both sides have taken innocents.

Well there is a difference. I am sorry you do not understand what war crimes are.

Ok, I read through all 11.5 or so pages just to post this. Props to me.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They were arrested for Demonstrating Without a Permit. They were merely sitting down. I don't like Sheehan, I think she is a loony. As is the fence jumper, he got what he deserved. But still, I believe that those charges and fines are unconstitutional...makes me want to gather a bunch of people and peaceably assemble and see if we get arrested.

There is no evidence to suggest that the President had anything to do with Sheehan being arrested.

Ok, I read through all 11.5 or so pages just to post this. Props to me.


They were arrested for Demonstrating Without a Permit. They were merely sitting down. I don't like Sheehan, I think she is a loony. As is the fence jumper, he got what he deserved. But still, I believe that those charges and fines are unconstitutional...makes me want to gather a bunch of people and peaceably assemble and see if we get arrested.


Actually, what she did WAS illegal. Obtaining a permit allows the police to keep the protesters safe. Just like yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre is illegal and not protected by the first amendment, protesting without a permit is as well.

Well there is a difference. I am sorry you do not understand what war crimes are.
I do understand what they are- politically/legally speaking you are entirely correct.

I was talking about the morality of it- bandying about the term 'babykillers' does the US military side no good either. Morally, they have killed innocents as have the insurgents.

i'm sure the legal definition is comfort to the families Ken Bigely, Daniel Pearl et al and the families of those Iraqs and Afghans who had their loved ones taken from them.

Right but the thing about yelling "Fire!" in a movie theatre is that it causes panic and endangers the lives of others. The actual yelling of "Fire!" isn't illegal, it's causing the panic that is.

I do understand what they are- politically/legally speaking you are entirely correct.

I was talking about the morality of it- bandying about the term 'babykillers' does the US military side no good either. Morally, they have killed innocents as have the insurgents.

i'm sure the legal definition is comfort to the families Ken Bigely, Daniel Pearl et al and the families of those Iraqs and Afghans who had their loved ones taken from them.

Those people intentionally target children. They stage bombing attacks with no other purpose. Defend them all you want. They are in no way morally equivalent to soldiers.

Those people intentionally target children. They stage bombing attacks with no other purpose. Defend them all you want. They are in no way morally equivalent to soldiers.
I'm not defending them.

i am showing you that 'baby killer' A is the same as 'baby killer' B because..... they both killed innocents. Justify it by saying 'we're the good guys' all you like.
doesn't change the fact that A and B took the life of an innocent.

Those people intentionally target children. They stage bombing attacks with no other purpose. Defend them all you want. They are in no way morally equivalent to soldiers.

Originally Posted by Psychotic Mongooses
I do understand what they are- politically/legally speaking you are entirely correct.

I was talking about the morality of it- bandying about the term 'babykillers' does the US military side no good either. Morally, they have killed innocents as have the insurgents.

i'm sure the legal definition is comfort to the families Ken Bigely, Daniel Pearl et al and the families of those Iraqs and Afghans who had their loved ones taken from them.




Lacadaemon I think you have a hard way to go to convince the zelots to use any sense . :rolleyes:
How sad is it that to project your idiology you are unwilling or unable to tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier ? Do you not realise the harm you do to your cause and the perception an ordinary rational human being has of you ? Your only support will be from the like minded and as such you will forever remain a pitifull and shuned minority . There is that I guess .

*snip 1*

Blah blah blah! Protesting is traitorous! Wanting peace is being unpatriotic! Protestors want us all to die! War is good! It's them or us!

A load of tripe from someone who can't be bothered to really explain or even rationalize his viewpoints.


People who rant and rave against this or any other war do not know how harmful their attitudes are to our troops and benificial to the enimies moral and propoganda.

CONFORM! OBEY! SIEG HEIL!


You would think that the idiots would have learned from Vietnam and the MAJOR problems that soldiers had coming back ie: Drug use, harrassment from the misinformed, etc...

And they did. I don't see any abuse on soldiers returning from Iraq. Do you?


To this day I laugh at the morons that think that just because we did not find weapons of mass destruction in the parts of Iraq that we do control that there are none.

To this day, I laugh at how short the memories of certain people are. Prior to the war, the administration was all so "we know where they are" and "We know where these weapons are being kept, and what types it is". They even had satelite pictures to "prove" the existence and locations of accused weapons.

And then nothing got found. Obviously, someone misplaced the photos and turned off the spy satelites.

The rest of your rant is a poor excuse of "oh, how hard it is to find something that we had absolute knowledge of where it was. And now we can't find it. We must be idiots."

Lacadaemon I think you have a hard way to go to convince the zelots to use any sense . :rolleyes:
How sad is it that to project your idiology you are unwilling or unable to tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier ? Do you not realise the harm you do to your cause and the perception an ordinary rational human being has of you ? Your only support will be from the like minded and as such you will forever remain a pitifull and shuned minority . There is that I guess .

Ok, so its ok to kill a child if you're a soldier.

But its not ok to kill a child if you're a terrorist.

Riiight...

Obviously you have missed the point! The Vietnam protest began as a small group too and grew outward since it met little to no resistance. The point Forrest and others, like myself, are trying to do is get the resistance up so that when these Honourable and valuable men and women get home they are welcomed with open arms and treated like the heros they are not like some leppers!

Maybe you should go back and read the book again and this time look for the meaning that the author intended.
C'mon now. If your going to challenge my reading comprehension at least respond to the post.

All protests lead to spitting on soldiers, eh? Bullshit, prove the connection. I don't buy it. Once is not a pattern.

And claiming that protesters are trying to get the resistance up to have people attack soldiers, that's downright cartoonish.

Go back, read the part you erased. Answer the questions.

I'm not defending them.

i am showing you that 'baby killer' A is the same as 'baby killer' B because..... they both killed innocents. Justify it by saying 'we're the good guys' all you like.
doesn't change the fact that A and B took the life of an innocent.

You are not showing me anything; because moral culpability depends upon intention. If had you car accident - as sometimes happens - and someone died as a result, I wouldn't consider you the same as a murderer. I wouldn't even consider you particularly guilty of anything.

Now this may surprise you, but soldiers are not under orders to go out and intentionally kill civilians and children. Sometimes there are unavoidable civilian casualties, but everything that is possible is done to minimize them. This is in sharp contrast to people who go out with no other intention than to blow up children and civilians.

In short, the allied forces are trying to keep the peace. Sometimes they have to kill insurgents to do this, and sometimes, unfortunately civilians accidently get killed. It's not even vaguely comparable to the insurgents who are deliberately looking to murder and torture ordinary civilians as their first priority. You might as well say that pilot error that causes a plane to crash is the same thing as someone who places a bomb on it, because they both result in the loss of innocent life.

I wouldn't like to live in a world that viewed things irrespective of motives and intentions, and I am sure nor would you.

Ok, so its ok to kill a child if you're a soldier.

But its not ok to kill a child if you're a terrorist.

Riiight...

Soldiers do not go out and deliberately shoot children. On the occasions that children are accidently killed by them in combat - mostly because of poor intelligence, or sheer mishap - they usually experience great mental stress, trauma and remorse. Frequently to debilitating levels, and it often haunts them for the rest of thier lives.

Terrorists on the other hand go out with the specific intention of blowing up schools and killing the children inside. And once they have done it, they are happy about it, an usually cannot wait to plant another bomb and kill more innocents.

If you cannot appreciate this difference I truly feel sorry for you. (It is because of this that we do not usually charge policemen with murder when the shoot an armed robber - even though they too have "taken a life".)

You are not showing me anything; because moral culpability depends upon intention. If had you car accident - as sometimes happens - and someone died as a result, I wouldn't consider you the same as a murderer. I wouldn't even consider you particularly guilty of anything.

Now this may surprise you, but soldiers are not under orders to go out and intentionally kill civilians and children. Sometimes there are unavoidable civilian casualties, but everything that is possible is done to minimize them. This is in sharp contrast to people who go out with no other intention than to blow up children and civilians.

In short, the allied forces are trying to keep the peace. Sometimes they have to kill insurgents to do this, and sometimes, unfortunately civilians accidently get killed. It's not even vaguely comparable to the insurgents who are deliberately looking to murder and torture ordinary civilians as their first priority. You might as well say that pilot error that causes a plane to crash is the same thing as someone who places a bomb on it, because they both result in the loss of innocent life.

I wouldn't like to live in a world that viewed things irrespective of motives and intentions, and I am sure nor would you.

Ok so, bottom line (lets break everything down to the base level- shy of hand puppets)
Your argument:
You can kill a child, but its ok if you are a soldier because you're not ordered to, nor do you intend to.

My argument:
A dead child is a DEAD CHILD. A soldier kills a baby- the phrase 'baby killer' springs to mind- accident or no, the fact remains- the soldier killed the baby.

Substitute 'terrorist' for soldier in the above- and you have my whole point.

It doesn't change the fact that the child got killed (by a terrorist or by a soldier)- the child is not coming back. Both are by definiton 'baby killers'.

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.

A more obvious case of Bush butt-kissing I have never before seen in my life! Do you even LISTEN to what anyone says anymore if they don't agree with you and your right-wing agenda one hundred percent?

Ok so, bottom line (lets break everything down to the base level- shy of hand puppets)
Your argument:
You can kill a child, but its ok if you are a soldier because you're not ordered to, nor do you intend to.

My argument:
A dead child is a DEAD CHILD. A soldier kills a baby- the phrase 'baby killer' springs to mind- accident or no, the fact remains- the soldier killed the baby.

Substitute 'terrorist' for soldier in the above- and you have my whole point.

It doesn't change the fact that the child got killed (by a terrorist or by a soldier)- the child is not coming back. Both are by definiton 'baby killers'.
You sir, surely miss the point. All these dead innocent, men, women, and children are nothing but "colateral damage". How dare you raise their stature to that of a human!! :rolleyes:

Ok, so its ok to kill a child if you're a soldier.

But its not ok to kill a child if you're a terrorist.

Riiight...


You continue to prove my point for me . You do not see the difference between a soldier and a terrorist . Clap trap rhetoric does not change that simple concept . You judge from the whole not from the part . If you can not accept that then there is little hope for you ever making a valid point with a rational and logical human being . You are doomed to remain a minority lumped in with the crackpots of the world .

You sir, surely miss the point. All these dead innocent, men, women, and children are nothing but "colateral damage". How dare you raise their stature to that of a human!! :rolleyes:
Somebody sees the light of day! :cool:

um.. I'm pretty sure a life is a life. Whether it was accidental or intentional doesn't much matter to the dead person.

And since when have terrorists been killing babies? I haven't heard of any reports of AK-toting men mowing down daycares... :confused:

A more obvious case of Bush butt-kissing I have never before seen in my life! Do you even LISTEN to what anyone says anymore if they don't agree with you and your right-wing agenda one hundred percent?
Do you even read any of the posts I make other than those dealing with the military, the war and "protestors?"

um.. I'm pretty sure a life is a life. Whether it was accidental or intentional doesn't much matter to the dead person.

And since when have terrorists been killing babies? I haven't heard of any reports of AK-toting men mowing down daycares... :confused:
You obviously ignored the news reports of a terrorist who drove his vehicle into a group of schoolchilden and then blew himself up.

You continue to prove my point for me . You do not see the difference between a soldier and a terrorist .

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!? :eek:
The child is STILL DEAD. Does it matter who killed him??!

Where, oh where, did I mention that anyone "hates" our soliders, Kemo-sabe?

All I'm interested in is preventing the kind of thing that happened during Vietnam, that's all.

Obviously we MUST hate our soldiers if you think we're eventually going to start spitting on them. If you want to prevent the kind of thing that happened during Vietnam, the first step is to not block out and/or demonize the protestors. Making snarky, hateful comments does nothing but make people angrier and more viscious. That much is obvious.

A dead child is a DEAD CHILD. A soldier kills a baby- the phrase 'baby killer' springs to mind- accident or no, the fact remains- the soldier killed the baby.

Substitute 'terrorist' for soldier in the above- and you have my whole point.

It doesn't change the fact that the child got killed (by a terrorist or by a soldier)- the child is not coming back. Both are by definiton 'baby killers'.
That's one of the names I was called by "protestors" when I came back from Veitnam. I have never forgotten it. I was so stunned that I was incapable of response. So far as I am aware, I have never even seen a baby in my line of fire, and would never have fired if I had.

Your comments are inappropriate, inaccurate, and hateful. :mad:

Ok so, bottom line (lets break everything down to the base level- shy of hand puppets)
Your argument:
You can kill a child, but its ok if you are a soldier because you're not ordered to, nor do you intend to.

My argument:
A dead child is a DEAD CHILD. A soldier kills a baby- the phrase 'baby killer' springs to mind- accident or no, the fact remains- the soldier killed the baby.

Substitute 'terrorist' for soldier in the above- and you have my whole point.

It doesn't change the fact that the child got killed (by a terrorist or by a soldier)- the child is not coming back. Both are by definiton 'baby killers'.

Your argument is wrong. You are taking an emotionally charged term, and applying it where it does not fit. The soldiers are not baby-killers because they do not wish to kill babies or children, the terrorists do.Why can you not appreciate this difference. And taken to its logical extremes it makes the RAF pilots of bomber command no different to the scum in the Einsatzgruppen SS: because, after all, they both killed innocent civillians. I however recognize that the SS deserve the epithet inhuman babykillers, whereas the pilots of bomber command do not and for the very same reason babykiller applies to the terrorists in Iraq, and not the soldiers.

It's the difference between a war criminal and someone who made a horrible mistake, or acted on incorrect information. And it is the same reason why some people are called murders, and some people - who even though they may have actually taken a life - are not.

Obviously we MUST hate our soldiers if you think we're eventually going to start spitting on them. If you want to prevent the kind of thing that happened during Vietnam, the first step is to not block out and/or demonize the protestors. Making snarky, hateful comments does nothing but make people angrier and more viscious. That much is obvious.
Most of them who respond that way were angry and viscious to begin with.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!? :eek:
The child is STILL DEAD. Does it matter who killed him??!

Yes it does . Are you that blinded by your ideology you have lost your common sense ? A man who walks up to a baby and swings him by his legs up against the wall banging his brains out and then hangs the corpse on a tree outside of a persons house as a warning to the rest of the village not to cooperate with whomever . Is not the same as a person who fires a rifle at a terrorist or soldier shooting at him and misses killing a child in the line of fire that he did not see .

You live up to the first part of your name but you are giving the mongoose a bad name .

That's one of the names I was called by "protestors" when I came back from Veitnam. I have never forgotten it. I was so stunned that I was incapable of response. So far as I am aware, I have never even seen a baby in my line of fire, and would never have fired if I had.

Your comments are inappropriate, inaccurate, and hateful. :mad:

WHAT?! :eek:
Eut- read what i was talking about please.

If a soldier (ANY soldier) kills a baby- then the term 'baby killer' is legit.

Likewise terrorist. One is not better then the other- the child is dead. Period.

I wasn't talking about you. :(

You sir, surely miss the point. All these dead innocent, men, women, and children are nothing but "colateral damage". How dare you raise their stature to that of a human!! :rolleyes:

That's sophistry and you know it. We are discuss the moral culpability of the actors themselves. No-one is seeking to minimize anyones death.

You should be ashamed.

Yes it does . Are you that blinded by your ideology you have lost your common sense ? A man who walks up to a baby and swings him by his legs up against the wall banging his brains out and then hangs the corpse on a tree outside of a persons house as a warning to the rest of the village not to cooperate with whomever . Is not the same as a person who fires a rifle at a terrorist or soldier shooting at him and misses killing a child in the line of fire that he did not see.

Moral bankruptcy: Sadly it is the new black. :mad:

Yes it does . Are you that blinded by your ideology you have lost your common sense ? A man who walks up to a baby and swings him by his legs up against the wall banging his brains out and then hangs the corpse on a tree outside of a persons house as a warning to the rest of the village not to cooperate with whomever . Is not the same as a person who fires a rifle at a terrorist or soldier shooting at him and misses killing a child in the line of fire that he did not see .

You live up to the first part of your name but you are giving the mongoose a bad name .

*sigh*
Ok- (almost at hand puppet time)
A: What ideology?
B: Man walks up yadda yadda yadda... kills baby. By defintion- baby killer.
Man in uniform shoots baby (accident or not- its irrelevent- baby is dead)... kills baby.

Now this is what i have been TRYING to say all along.... 2 men kill 2 babies.... babies are dead.... 2 men are BY THE VERY WORDING BABY KILLERS. Thats all.

Most of them who respond that way were angry and viscious to begin with.

So you agree that the protests will not escalate? Or are you just being snarky?

WHAT?! :eek:
Eut- read what i was talking about please.

If a soldier (ANY soldier) kills a baby- then the term 'baby killer' is legit.

Likewise terrorist. One is not better then the other- the child is dead. Period.

I wasn't talking about you. :(

So its somehow important to find out what soldier actually is responsible for killing a baby so as to accurately call him or her ababy killer. No matter what the circumstances . Or do you advocate calling all soldiers baby killers irreguardless of if they killed anyone . Is guilt by association good enough ?

*sigh*
Ok- (almost at hand puppet time)
A: What ideology?
B: Man walks up yadda yadda yadda... kills baby. By defintion- baby killer.
Man in uniform shoots baby (accident or not- its irrelevent- baby is dead)... kills baby.

Now this is what i have been TRYING to say all along.... 2 men kill 2 babies.... babies are dead.... 2 men are BY THE VERY WORDING BABY KILLERS. Thats all.

Do you not see how the term baby-killer is emotional charged and more than just a mere description?

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.


Sheehan Arrested During Anti-War Protest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050926/ap_on_re_us/war_demonstrations)

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan, carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down — knowing they would be arrested — and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!"

Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police.

Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.

Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.

Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year. She attracted worldwide attention last month with her 26-day vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

The demonstration is part of a broader anti-war effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from anti-war groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush is "very much aware" of the protesters and "recognizes that there are differences of opinion" on Iraq.

"It's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views. And that's what you're seeing here in Washington, D.C.," McClellan said. "They're well-intentioned, but the president strongly believes that withdrawing ... would make us less safe and make the world more dangerous."

The protest Monday followed a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters: Don't be a group of unthinking lemmings," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. She said the anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."

Oh how dare she express her opinion in an overly loud manner in this country. This country where you can say whatever the fuck you want, and get away with it. Blah blah blah go to hell

Or do you advocate calling all soldiers baby killers irreguardless of if they killed anyone . Is guilt by association good enough ?

(I think i'm talking crazy pills *shakes head*)

Where oh for the sweet love of Jebus WHERE DID I SAY THAT AT ALL?

A soldier (doesn't matter what his'her name is, nationality/colour/creed or WHAT F**KING ARMY THEY BELONG TO) shoots a baby and kills it. Baby killer.

A terrorist (same as above- re creed/colour/etc) kills a baby. Baby killer.

Baby is dead. Does it really matter whether one was 'manslaghter or murder'? Does it matter to the dead baby.

it has taken...3 pages to get this very simple and BASIC view that- killing babies is naughty- no matter WHO does it!

Do you even read any of the posts I make other than those dealing with the military, the war and "protestors?"

I have never encountered you in a thread that DIDN'T deal with the military, the war, or protestors...so the answer is no. I didn't even know you participated in threads dealing with other things. Maybe you could point me in the direction of some of these other threads you have participated in?

From my experience of you, Eutrusca, my opinion remains unchanged, you are...in my opinion...a Bush butt-kisser who has drunk the kool-aid, been brainwashed, and has bought the Bush propaganda hook, line, and sinker...to the point where you will not even consider another point of view.

You could argue I'm the reverse. I have learned to be so distrustful and cynical of the Bush Administration that I believe absolutely NOTHING that comes out of it.

Do you not see how the term baby-killer is emotional charged and more than just a mere description?

you used the term 'baby killer' mon ami- not me.

Fine- child killer, is that better to your palate?

*sigh*
Ok- (almost at hand puppet time)
A: What ideology?
B: Man walks up yadda yadda yadda... kills baby. By defintion- baby killer.
Man in uniform shoots baby (accident or not- its irrelevent- baby is dead)... kills baby.

Now this is what i have been TRYING to say all along.... 2 men kill 2 babies.... babies are dead.... 2 men are BY THE VERY WORDING BABY KILLERS. Thats all.


Mr. gooses by trying to rationalise the use of the term " baby killers" as used by protesters against soldiers . You have jumped down a slippery slope . By the very wording it is wrong and shamefull behavior . As is comparing a soldier to a terrorist. Unless you have a specific incident such as Mai Lai and such . If you are to insist that you are only using the literal meaning of words. You are from the content and context of your post projecting a provocative message, intentionally or not . Its all in the context Mr. gooses . :)

Mr. gooses by trying to rationalise the use of the term " baby killers" as used by protesters against soldiers . You have jumped down a slippery slope . By the very wording it is wrong and shamefull behavior . As is comparing a soldier to a terrorist. Unless you have a specific incident such as Mai Lai and such . If you are to insist that you are only using the literal meaning of words. You are from the content and context of your post projecting a provocative message, intentionally or not . Its all in the context Mr. gooses . :)

Very good! Now tell him that he didn't receive enough schooling or that he sympathizes with terrorists, and your argument will be complete.

it has taken...3 pages to get this very simple and BASIC view that- killing babies is naughty- no matter WHO does it!

Inncorrect. It is always tragic and it is always unfortunate. It is not however always "naughty" to use your inapt terminology, that's the point we are trying to impress upon you. Unless you can grasp that, how can you tell the difference between a war crime and self-defense. In both cases, people die.

You also have to understand that I do not place US soldiers on a pedestal and believe them above reproach.

If anyone is emboldening the enemy, it's US Soldiers like Pfc. Lynndie England and Cpl. Charles Graner.

Where is the outrage against them for stirring up an already embittered hornets nest?

Not one thread on them in the first 5 pages of this General Forum. There are 6 threads on Cindy Sheehan and her "atrocities".
Get serious. There's no comparison and you know it. Both Graner and England are being prosecuted; Sheehan isn't. And before you tune up on that one, let me add that as far as I know, the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan hasn't done anything worthy of prosecution. All she has done is use her dead son to build herself a media campaign, which, while dispicable in the extreme, is not actionable under law.

Mr. gooses by trying to rationalise the use of the term " baby killers" as used by protesters against soldiers . You have jumped down a slippery slope . By the very wording it is wrong and shamefull behavior . As is comparing a soldier to a terrorist. Unless you have a specific incident such as Mai Lai and such . If you are to insist that you are only using the literal meaning of words. You are from the content and context of your post projecting a provocative message, intentionally or not . Its all in the context Mr. gooses . :)


emmmm...... WHAT? Find out where i tried to rationalise the use of 'baby killers' as used by protestors aganst soldiers- I WILL BUY AND SHIP TO YOU A CRATE OF BEER! :D

Read this carefully- I...never... compared.... this... protest... with... the ...above... discussion.... about... the ...term...baby...killers...ok?

The two were seperate and different discussions that evolved from this thread. OK? If you were mistaking the two and mixing them up... then that explains A LOT! :)

Of course you can have that opinion and you can state it. The fact that you hold it when given evidence to the contrary is a little disturbing, but that's the way it goes.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't about evidence. This is about rhetoric. She is spewing rhetoric and this is what I'm interpreting it as. I find it disturbing that you can plate your opinion in gold and call it evidence.

It's called "learning", something you're familiar with as you said you had to go to class. :p

Will you then learn and support the war then?

Actually, you did use the term "behind bars" .... post #122 in this thread.

Well correction noted.

You brought her into play by saying I had no right to say anything since I haven't lost anyone (child specificly) I mentioned her to show that I have felt that kind of pain and to help me deal with her loss, as I must everyday. If I don't deal with her loss I can not give my all to my present marriage.

So, the fact that Sheehan opposes the war and her son died in it isn't "bringing him up?" Seems to me that if your child died in a war you opposed, one is perfectly justified in invoking his name.

Inncorrect. It is always tragic and it is always unfortunate. It is not however always "naughty" to use your inapt terminology, that's the point we are trying to impress upon you. Unless you can grasp that, how can you tell the difference between a war crime and self-defense. In both cases, people die.

That, is EXACTLY what i was arguing. Does it matter to the kid who is dead whether some soldier accidentally shot him or whether he was solely picked by a terrorist.....

No.

Man, its 3.35am where i am right now.... :mad: 'Naughty' was me being tired and annoyed- and treating this like it is- CRAZY!

CONFORM! OBEY! SIEG HEIL!

To this day, I laugh at how short the memories of certain people are. Prior to the war, the administration was all so "we know where they are" and "We know where these weapons are being kept, and what types it is". They even had satelite pictures to "prove" the existence and locations of accused weapons.

And then nothing got found. Obviously, someone misplaced the photos and turned off the spy satelites.

The rest of your rant is a poor excuse of "oh, how hard it is to find something that we had absolute knowledge of where it was. And now we can't find it. We must be idiots."
The actual quotes are of 2 seperate topics. The first one was talking about terrorists and their supports. the second is actually about the WMD. If you are going to quote someone make sure you get the quote right! And since we do KNOW for a fact they were in Iraqi possession and they haven't been found how would you explain it?

you used the term 'baby killer' mon ami- not me.

Fine- child killer, is that better to your palate?

Yes, I used it, because it was appropriate in that case. Just like I call murderers murderers, but I don't call Ted Kennedy a murderer, even though by your perspective he probably is. (After all a life is still a life no matter how it is lost).

And no, child killer is not better to my palate. In fact anything with "killer" in it is probably inappropriate.

Very good! Now tell him that he didn't receive enough schooling or that he sympathizes with terrorists, and your argument will be complete.

I have no information reguarding his schooling nor do I know whom his sympathy lies with . Why would I do that ? I am simply pointing out that there is a difference . Thank you for the suggestion however inapropriate .

Inncorrect. It is always tragic and it is always unfortunate. It is not however always "naughty" to use your inapt terminology, that's the point we are trying to impress upon you. Unless you can grasp that, how can you tell the difference between a war crime and self-defense. In both cases, people die.
People die, regardless. This entire issue is a tempest in a teapot. I have never heard of any American military person deliberately taking the life of a child. Those few who did so, in total contravention of the laws of war, the UCMJ, and innumerable other laws and treaties, were prosecuted for having done so. ( Spare me the WWII stories, please. That was total war with the very existence of Western civilization at stake and indiscriminate bombing was begun by the Germans. )

Those who cannot distinguish between the accidental taking of civilian lives by those engaged in warfare and the deliberate taking of civilian lives as a matter of course deserve neither response nor respect.

Okay, I've had my fill with all this. Eutrusca -

What would you have us do? Break up the protests with the army? Ban peaceful assembly? Ban free speech? Just a little something to make Saddam proud, and have Hitler turn over in his grave? Perhaps we could have our own Tiennamen Square? Tanks crushing peaceful protestors whom disagree with the 'old guard?' Or would you prefer something more intimate, like a Kent State?

You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. You like Democracy? Well I sure hope you do, considering your stance on the Iraq war. Well if you support Democracy, then you support the rights that come with that, including Free Speech, and Peaceful Assembly(yes, even if it gets to the point of ppl bitching at/protesting the soldiers). Either you support those rights or you do not. Supporting them situationally is tantamount to not supporting them at all. After all, it's not a 'right' if we can ban it when someone says/protests something we don't like.

You are more logical than this. You may not like what she says, but your commentary suggests we should do something to stop her, which is precisely what we CANNOT do. After all(to look at this from your point of view), which is the bigger victory for the enemy - a questionable morale boost from anti-war protestors, or the knowledge that however indirectly, the 'terrorists' destroyed the Bill of Rights? I thought so.

COMMENTARY: Well, it had to happen sooner or later, since the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan was bound and determined to project her "demands" in the most public and media-attractive way. This is how that bullshit started during Veitnam. It ended with verbal attacks against soldiers, spitting on soldiers, harassing calls at midnight to the families of soldiers killed, etc., etc., ad nauseaum. This will not be permitted to happen again. Period.

C'mon now. If your going to challenge my reading comprehension at least respond to the post.

All protests lead to spitting on soldiers, eh? Bullshit, prove the connection. I don't buy it. Once is not a pattern.

And claiming that protesters are trying to get the resistance up to have people attack soldiers, that's downright cartoonish.

Go back, read the part you erased. Answer the questions.
I never said they spit on the soldiers and I am not saying they are trying to get people to attack the soldiers. Your reading comprehension is obviously in doubt now! My comments are and always will be that the soldiers returning from Vietnam were treated like the scurge of humanity. People like this woman and the attitude they spread are having the same effect. The men and women that are fighting the war against Terror deserve our respect and gratitude not to be treated like Pariahs!

That, is EXACTLY what i was arguing. Does it matter to the kid who is dead whether some soldier accidentally shot him or whether he was solely picked by a terrorist.....

No.

Man, its 3.35am where i am right now.... :mad: 'Naughty' was me being tired and annoyed- and treating this like it is- CRAZY!

Like I said, I am not minimizing the human impact at a personal level. But how society views each case is, and should be, different. What's more, because of that, the terms we use to describe each side should reflect that. Which is why a police officer can kill and innocent bystander during an armed robbery, and still be considered a hero, but if an armed robber kills an innocent bystander then he is automatically a murderer.

Intention is everything. We punish the criminal mind, not the criminal act. Rightly so.

And any attempt to draw comparisions between US/UK forces, and terrorist scum, is nothing more than apologetics for the insurgents despicable behavior.

emmmm...... WHAT? Find out where i tried to rationalise the use of 'baby killers' as used by protestors aganst soldiers- I WILL BUY AND SHIP TO YOU A CRATE OF BEER! :D

Read this carefully- I...never... compared.... this... protest... with... the ...above... discussion.... about... the ...term...baby...killers...ok?

The two were seperate and different discussions that evolved from this thread. OK? If you were mistaking the two and mixing them up... then that explains A LOT! :)


Its possible I misunderstood your intentions . can you clear it up for me without the puppets ? What exactly is your point ? I do not seem to grasp the fact that soldiers and terrorist that kill babys are " baby killers " and thus should be classed the same .

um.. I'm pretty sure a life is a life. Whether it was accidental or intentional doesn't much matter to the dead person.

And since when have terrorists been killing babies? I haven't heard of any reports of AK-toting men mowing down daycares... :confused:
no they just blow up the busses carrying them around or the mother that is still carrying them in the womb or the schools they are at, etc...

People die, regardless. This entire issue is a tempest in a teapot. I have never heard of any American military person deliberately taking the life of a child. Those few who did so, in total contravention of the laws of war, the UCMJ, and innumerable other laws and treaties, were prosecuted for having done so. ( Spare me the WWII stories, please. That was total war with the very existence of Western civilization at stake and indiscriminate bombing was begun by the Germans. )

Those who cannot distinguish between the accidental taking of civilian lives by those engaged in warfare and the deliberate taking of civilian lives as a matter of course deserve neither response nor respect.

I understand that. I don't like the type of mushy-headed thinking that allows these inapposite comparisons to be drawn. Indeed tolerance for this kind of sophistry, apologetics, and moral relativity is precisely why our political system is so disfunctional.

As long as the far left anti-war types are permitted to improperly recast the insurgency as "freedom fighters" who are simply "defending their home" and somehow present them as the morally equivalent to coalition troops, they are allowed to escape from discussing the very real issues present in Iraq.

My father fought in vietnam. He went because he was drafted, not because he thought it was right, but did what his government asked of him. America was built on the premise that it was for the people and by the people. We need to remember that...or what else would we be? Certainly not a democracy. We have a right to stand up and protest. Just the same as hate groups have the right to protest, the women in the early 1900's who protested for their right to vote, the protest against segregation...all of these things would not have changed, if someone hadnt said enough, and protested. As far as I can see, she hasnt called the soldiers "baby killers" or "murderers" or had feces thrown on them...like they did my dad. They are protesting Bush. As an American, you should be proud that you have a right to be heard. Whether you agree with her or not, that is her right.

Like I said, I am not minimizing the human impact at a personal level. But how society views each case is, and should be, different. What's more, because of that, the terms we use to describe each side should reflect that. Which is why a police officer can kill and innocent bystander during an armed robbery, and still be considered a hero, but if an armed robber kills an innocent bystander then he is automatically a murderer.

Intention is everything. We punish the criminal mind, not the criminal act. Rightly so.

And any attempt to draw comparisions between US/UK forces, and terrorist scum, is nothing more than apologetics for the insurgents despicable behavior.

My point originally was:first change the scenario- I kill a baby. i am by entymology (i think thats the right word) a baby killer.

You kill a baby- you are entym. speaking a ....baby killer.

A soldier (never said US- could be Napoleonic for all i care) kills a baby (intentionally or by accident)... ENTYM. speaking- a baby killer.

If you want to attach societal morals onto that label then fine- i WASN'T DOING THAT.

A guerrila/resistance fighter/terrorist kills a baby- again by def. they are a baby killer-

Now why are all the above similar- what is the one thing they have in common? They all killed a baby/child/whatever and therefore entym (how the hell does one spell that word??) speaking- they are all equal as they have all killed the same thing.

Again, if you want to break that down into 'one was good the other wasn't... FINE, I wasn't doing that!

also, i never called anyone on here a goddamn baby killer, nor did i mention Iraq/Sheehan/anti War protestors/Vietnam etc etc so chill out!

My point originally was:first change the scenario- I kill a baby. i am by entymology (i think thats the right word) a baby killer.


You meet a gay couple in a sexually active relationship. Do you think it is fair to address them, or otherwise to refer to them as sodomites? Of course not. Sometimes just because something is literally true, does not make it the appropriate description.

So, the fact that Sheehan opposes the war and her son died in it isn't "bringing him up?" Seems to me that if your child died in a war you opposed, one is perfectly justified in invoking his name.
She is just using him to decry everything her son stood for and believed in! It is a method of getting attentin and she is full of crap. This is the same as terrorist organizations invoking the names of those who have died in completely unrelated matters and making a false martyr out of them whether they have had any relation to the "movement".

I understand that. I don't like the type of mushy-headed thinking that allows these inapposite comparisons to be drawn. Indeed tolerance for this kind of sophistry, apologetics, and moral relativity is precisely why our political system is so disfunctional.

As long as the far left anti-war types are permitted to improperly recast the insurgency as "freedom fighters" who are simply "defending their home" and somehow present them as the morally equivalent to coalition troops, they are allowed to escape from discussing the very real issues present in Iraq.

Its very difficult to accept attacks on brave volunteers who understand and personify honor and are willing to put everything they are and will ever be on the line for us and our country . They deserve our support although they will never demand it . Dissent is the American way and America was founded by dissenters its important to respect the rights of those who disaggree with the politics of the Governement . At the same time its important that those who choose to dissent repect the rights of the majority and respect those who deserve our support and are willing to die to protect the very rights they enjoy and are expressing .

You meet a gay couple in a sexually active relationship. Do you think it is fair to address them, or otherwise to refer to them as sodomites? Of course not. Sometimes just because something is literally true, does not make it the appropriate description.

(whoa, THAT came out of left field....)

Em, i suppose if they took a swing at me... then no :p .

Call a woman, 'female' for all i care. Or a German 'Teutonic', or a straight guy- heterosexual....

i don't get what you point is? :confused:

Is it political correctness? Or....

Eutrusca: make with some factual evidence re: the purported spitting on soldiers, or just stick a finger down my throat already. You've ranted, raved, and gone on ever-increasingly paranoid flights of fancy in your determination to prevent this supposed indignity from re-occuring, yet you've never substantiated this oft-repeated claim of yours.

And for the record? Good for Cindy Mother-loving Sheehan. Call her all the names you want, she faced down her enemy - a corrupt and morally bankrupt regime, the men who needlessly caused the death of her son while fighting in an unjustified, illegal war staged as bread and circuses for a nation of emotionally-stunted stimulus addicts - and let herself be arrested by those who act on that regime's behalf, knowing that her cause is just and right.

I'd have thought you might have conceded some measure of respect for her on the basis of this article, not seized this as yet another opportunity to make broad unsubstantiated allusions to most likely apocryphal episodes of days gone by. Colour me unsurprised, yet still disappointed, Eut.

That's sophistry and you know it. We are discuss the moral culpability of the actors themselves. No-one is seeking to minimize anyones death.

You should be ashamed.
No sir, I think you are wrong. This thread is a classic example of sophistry. What I have done is point out the reality.

This thread was designed to discredit a woman, who is legally exercizing her right to protest against an unnecessary, and deadly war. A war that claimed the life of her son. A war that has claimed many sons and daughters of Iraqis and Americans alike. A war that didn't need to be fought.

If you want to look at dishonesty and flawed argumentation, just look at the words some of the posters have used to describe Cindy's character. The word "dishonourable" comes to mind. She has been called a moron, crazy, stupid, whore, bitch, etc. So much for your vaunted rights and freedoms.

If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing.

I feel no shame in bringing forth the truth, but I think some posters here should hang their heads in shame.

She is just using him to decry everything her son stood for and believed in! It is a method of getting attentin and she is full of crap. This is the same as terrorist organizations invoking the names of those who have died in completely unrelated matters and making a false martyr out of them whether they have had any relation to the "movement".

On the other hand, if there had been irrefutable proof that Hussein and bin Ladin were in collusion and Iraq did possess nuclear missiles capable of reaching North America, then she would be just another grieving mother.

(whoa, THAT came out of left field....)

Em, i suppose if they took a swing at me... then no :p .

Call a woman, 'female' for all i care. Or a German 'Teutonic', or a straight guy- heterosexual....

i don't get what you point is? :confused:

Is it political correctness? Or....

The point is, just because something at the barest level is literally true, does not make it the appropriate name. Babykiller is a highly charged term that is not only a literal description, but also implies moral degeneracy. (Though I am sure that you are well aware of that.) It is similar to sodomite in that sense. Which is why you don't go round calling people sodomites, even if it may be literally true.

That is why babykiller is not appropriate for Soldiers they are not pyschotic bloodthirsty killers (of children or otherwise). (In fact the armed forces go to considerable lengths to screen those people out). Yet, that is what babykiller implies.

The point is, just because something at the barest level is literally true, does not make it the appropriate name. Babykiller is a highly charged term that is not only a literal description, but also implies moral degeneracy. (Though I am sure that you are well aware of that.) It is similar to sodomite in that sense. Which is why you don't go round calling people sodomites, even if it may be literally true.

That is why babykiller is not appropriate for Soldiers they are not pyschotic bloodthirsty killers (of children or otherwise). (In fact the armed forces go to considerable lengths to screen those people out). Yet, that is what babykiller implies.

So it was out of PC that you didn't like the term 'baby killers'... right.. *sigh*

i meant it literally- and bloody said that all the way through :mad:
Its not my fault if others take what i literally said and implied their own mortality on it- if i meant to mean it in a morally charged way- i woulda said so!

Grand- i'm exhausted now- have to be up in 4 hrs- but i enjoyed that merry go round :p

No sir, I think you are wrong. This thread is a classic example of sophistry. What I have done is point out the reality.

This thread was designed to discredit a woman, who is legally exercizing her right to protest against an unnecessary, and deadly war. A war that claimed the life of her son. A war that has claimed many sons and daughters of Iraqis and Americans alike. A war that didn't need to be fought.

If you want to look at dishonesty and flawed argumentation, just look at the words some of the posters have used to describe Cindy's character. The word "dishonourable" comes to mind. She has been called a moron, crazy, stupid, whore, bitch, etc. So much for your vaunted rights and freedoms.

If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing.

I feel no shame in bringing forth the truth, but I think some posters here should hang their heads in shame.


You can respect her right to protest and still think she is an asshole for the way she acts , what she says and the way she says it and who she chooses to say it with . Those that need to express an opinion of Sheehan have as much of a right to expression as she has . Or are you forgetting that .
Your view of the war is not shared by the majority nor those that are actually doing the fighting and dying . so saying she has more of a right than anyone or impling that her cause is somehow noble or more noble than any other has no validity .

No sir, I think you are wrong. This thread is a classic example of sophistry. What I have done is point out the reality.

This thread was designed to discredit a woman, who is legally exercizing her right to protest against an unnecessary, and deadly war. A war that claimed the life of her son. A war that has claimed many sons and daughters of Iraqis and Americans alike. A war that didn't need to be fought.

If you want to look at dishonesty and flawed argumentation, just look at the words some of the posters have used to describe Cindy's character. The word "dishonourable" comes to mind. She has been called a moron, crazy, stupid, whore, bitch, etc. So much for your vaunted rights and freedoms.

If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing.

I feel no shame in bringing forth the truth, but I think some posters here should hang their heads in shame.

I am not the thread, and your entire argument there has little, if anything to do with what I am saying. I simply pointed out that there is a huge difference between soldiers and insurgents, in that their actions cannot be considered morally equivalent. And your response to me seemed to make the argument that because in either case people may be killed, both cases are equivalent. (Which is, of course, demonstrably not true.)

I don't care what Sheehan does or does not do. (Other than the fact she provides an excuse for everyone to avoid actually thinking about anything constructive). I do however object to the type of apologetics that equate terrorists with soldiers. (As any right thinking person would).

That said, if you replied to my post not accidently, thinking that I was saying something else, oh well,

Eutrusca: make with some factual evidence re: the purported spitting on soldiers, or just stick a finger down my throat already. You've ranted, raved, and gone on ever-increasingly paranoid flights of fancy in your determination to prevent this supposed indignity from re-occuring, yet you've never substantiated this oft-repeated claim of yours.

And for the record? Good for Cindy Mother-loving Sheehan. Call her all the names you want, she faced down her enemy - a corrupt and morally bankrupt regime, the men who needlessly caused the death of her son while fighting in an unjustified, illegal warillegal war staged as bread and circuses for a nation of emotionally-stunted stimulus addicts - and let herself be arrested by those who act on that regime's behalf, knowing that her cause is just and right.

I'd have thought you might have conceded some measure of respect for her on the basis of this article, not seized this as yet another opportunity to make broad unsubstantiated allusions to most likely apocryphal episodes of days gone by. Colour me unsurprised, yet still disappointed, Eut.
Oh brother! what makes this an illegal war? One country invaded another, there were battles and the first country wins. Most other times the invaded country would then become part of the first country. :mad:

I am not the thread, and your entire argument there has little, if anything to do with what I am saying. I simply pointed out that there is a huge difference between soldiers and insurgents, in that their actions cannot be considered morally equivalent. And your response to me seemed to make the argument that because in either case people may be killed, both cases are equivalent. (Which is, of course, demonstrably not true.)

I don't care what Sheehan does or does not do. (Other than the fact she provides an excuse for everyone to avoid actually thinking about anything constructive). I do however object to the type of apologetics that equate terrorists with soldiers. (As any right thinking person would).

That said, if you replied to my post not accidently, thinking that I was saying something else, oh well,

Eh, nah mate. i think our little 'side' thread wasn't what he was talking about...:D

Rosa Parks got herself arrested (as did Martin Luther King Jr.) while protesting, does that make them a bunch of "dishonorable" protestors?



The problem with that argument is that you think with a now-type of attitued.

back then they were considered dishonorable by whites and some blacks(bcause those blacks thought only harm would come from it) because rosa and martin king upsetted their staue quo(blacks lower then whites).

Oh brother! what makes this an illegal war? One country invaded another, there were battles and the first country wins. Most other times the invaded country would then become part of the first country. :mad:
Perhaps the fact it was based on no evidence whatsoever? Or maybe it was because we were in a crazed authoritative "kill all the fucking Arabs" mentality after 9/11, which Bush exploited to his full advantage. Or perhaps you'd like to return to the dark ages, where there is no such thing as "illegal" or "legal" war, just war. Endless, perpetual war. War with no end in sight. Wait a minute...We already have that!

SIGH! Let me try ONE MORE TIME: they weren't arrested for "protesting!" They were arrested because they violated the law, something they did with full knowledge and malice aforethought. Is that plain enough for you???

They were arrested for violating the law by protesting.

Oh brother! what makes this an illegal war? One country invaded another, there were battles and the first country wins. Most other times the invaded country would then become part of the first country. :mad:




NO!!!!!!! this is not a fucking illegal war for two of the top of my head reasons.



1)congress voted almost entierly to go to war.

2)sadaam violated several treaties placed by the U.N. (which the U.S. signed) allowing millitary action to be taken by the U.S. on that reason alone.

THIS IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR!!!!! and if you are sooo angry take that anger out on the congress man who voted to let him go to war not just bush!

Perhaps the fact it was based on no evidence whatsoever? Or maybe it was because we were in a crazed authoritative "kill all the fucking Arabs" mentality after 9/11, which Bush exploited to his full advantage. Or perhaps you'd like to return to the dark ages, where there is no such thing as "illegal" or "legal" war, just war. Endless, perpetual war. War with no end in sight. Wait a minute...We already have that!

Morvania is actually right , you are in fact wrong. Your opinion on the war is not relevant to its legality .

The fact that the legality of the war is not being disputed in court and that legal justification for the war was presented to the United Nations by the United States and Great Britain . And the fact that the war meets the criteria of a "war " by both the United Nations definition and the Hague convention and other relevant treatys makes this war in FACT legal until adjudged otherwise by the appropriate body .

The documentation is in another thread , one of the hundreds that seem to bring up this subject . :rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9705193#post9705193

They were arrested for violating the law by protesting.

they were arrested for violating the law WHILE protesting . Its a big difference but then you knew that did you not ?

The protesting was not relevant to them breaking the law .