NationStates Jolt Archive

We've all had the threads about whether or not people were hostile to returning Vietnam veterans, and whether or not people called them baby killers. In fact, some people think that both of those things are urban legend, and have no basis in fact.

Well, it's not an urban legend for currently returning soldiers.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 6:15 pm PDT August 30, 2006

PARKLAND, Wash. -- The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is searching for five people who allegedly attacked a uniformed National Guardsmen walking along 138th Street in Parkland Tuesday afternoon.

The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.

“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.

The suspects were driving a black Chevy Suburban-type SUV.

“This is something new for us, we have not had military people assaulted because they were in the military or somebody's opposition to a war or whatever,” Troyer said.

The driver is described as a white male, 25-30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, heavy build, short blond hair, wearing a black T-shirt and jeans, and armed with a handgun.

The vehicle's passengers are described as white males, 20-25 years old. Some of the suspects wore red baseball hats and red sweatshirts during the attack.

We've all had the threads about whether or not people were hostile to returning Vietnam veterans, and whether or not people called them baby killers. In fact, some people think that both of those things are urban legend, and have no basis in fact.

Well, it's not an urban legend for currently returning soldiers.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html

Correct reaction, wrong victim. They should've picked a politician to kick...

Correct reaction, wrong victim. They should've picked a politician to kick...

I'm just saying that I've heard many people say that it never happened during the Vietnam Era.

It's certainly happened now. Undeniably.

Whoa thats really out of order. Sure I oppose the war but assaulting a soldier because he was ordered to go is stupid.

I'm just saying that I've heard many people say that it never happened during the Vietnam Era.

It's certainly happened now. Undeniably.

Your trust in journalists is unsurprisingly onesided.....

Did you bother to see if there is any verification or the other standards you like to use when posting comments about how all journos have no integrity etc etc?

I'm just saying that I've heard many people say that it never happened during the Vietnam Era.I think the idea is that people say that it occurred regularly during the Vietnam Era, and the dissenters saying that this wasn't the case. I'm not certain if anyone has said it didn't occur at all, just that it didn't regularly occur.

Your trust in journalists is unsurprisingly onesided.....

Did you bother to see if there is any verification or the other standards you like to use when posting comments about how all journos have no integrity etc etc?

I contacted the police department.

If you read the article, there's a phone number at the bottom.

There are a generous sprinkling of scumbags in every generation and every nation. What can you do? Hopefully, with the description of the vehicle and the driver the police will pick him up, or maybe he'll "display" his gun to the wrong soldier and end up getting shot for his trouble.

I contacted the police department.

If you read the article, there's a phone number at the bottom.

Kind of a surprising story. They oppose the war so they beat a random person. That's interesting, irratational but interesting. Sort of like anti-abortionists murdering doctors.


Life is precious! *BOOM*

Kind of a surprising story. They oppose the war so they beat a random person. That's interesting, irratational but interesting. Sort of like anti-abortionists murdering doctors.

Life is precious! *BOOM*

No one denies that anti-abortionists murder doctors. Plenty of people will deny that anti-war protesters will ever assault soldiers and threaten them with guns.

I contacted the police department.

If you read the article, there's a phone number at the bottom.

Which you did not mention in your OP.... :rolleyes:

Either way...if it is true then I trust these idiots get prosecuted under the law.

Which you did not mention in your OP.... :rolleyes:

Either way...if it is true then I trust these idiots get prosecuted under the law.

You know, the objection I have to people relying on reporters is that they (the people listening to reporters) accept what they say on faith.

I try to verify what I can. Why don't you call them? Or are you taking what I post on faith?

I'm not sure why they're describing what they were wearing. Are criminals unable to change clothes now?

I'm not sure why they're describing what they were wearing. Are criminals unable to change clothes now?

Are you completely unfamiliar with police reports? Since time immemorial, they've included "a description of the suspect(s)".

Which includes what they wear.

Hmm. The description of the attackers sounds like members of some sort of white supremacist gang. Doesn't really fit the sentiment, though, unless it's motivated by some sort of anarchist or anti-government ideas.

More likely that they're just militant-left assholes, though it's definitely odd that they would be young white males wearing the same color, that color being red. Though that is a color historically associated with communism.

Correct reaction, wrong victim. They should've picked a politician to kick...

Wait-I thought you were against violence

Wait-I thought you were against violence

Official NS General Rule #1:

"Violence is OK if your side is doing it".

You know, the objection I have to people relying on reporters is that they (the people listening to reporters) accept what they say on faith.

I try to verify what I can. Why don't you call them? Or are you taking what I post on faith?

LOL!!!

Unbelievable!

I'm starting to think you are a comedian....and a damn good one at that!

Best laugh I've had today and I've had Black Adder season one on in the back ground.

Cheers!

Official NS General Rule #1:

"Violence is OK if your side is doing it".

Thats one of my ammendments to the ten commandments

Wait-I thought you were against violence

I've also got a big mouth.

I wouldn't have approved if they had done that with a politician either, but this act was completely misdirected.

One instance of a military man being assaulted does not a trend make as you seem to be making it sound like with "All I'm saying is that anti-war protestors attack soldiers and call them names".

These dudes were douchbags and possibly anti-war protestors, but they possibly could have been using it as an excuse to prove to themselves how tough they were and beat up a military guy. They could have at least tried to go one on one with him.

I'm glad to see that the guy wasn't hurt.

One instance of a military man being assaulted does not a trend make as you seem to be making it sound like with "All I'm saying is that anti-war protestors attack soldiers and call them names".

These dudes were douchbags and possibly anti-war protestors, but they possibly could have been using it as an excuse to prove to themselves how tough they were and beat up a military guy. They could have at least tried to go one on one with him.

I'm glad to see that the guy wasn't hurt.

As I recall, the challenge in the Vietnam era posts were "find one real example" - and if we couldn't find one real example, it NEVER happened.

Happy now? Here's your "real" example.

As I recall, the challenge in the Vietnam era posts were "find one real example" - and if we couldn't find one real example, it NEVER happened.

Happy now? Here's your "real" example.


As long as you don't contend that it was a trend, I wont contend that it never happened.

As long as you don't contend that it was a trend, I wont contend that it never happened.

I've already met several veterans who were similarly castigated and assaulted (just not with a pistol). Not everything makes the news.

I believe it's a trend.

I've already met several veterans who were similarly castigated and assaulted (just not with a pistol). Not everything makes the news.

I believe it's a trend.

I think you are lying. I haven't met a single one and I am good friends with some marines in a heavily liberal state (California), who say that they don't know anyone who has been talked down to, spit on, called a baby killer or assaulted in any way for being in the milirtary, and I have family in the Airforce as well who say the same thing.

I think you are lying. I haven't met a single one and I am good friends with some marines in a heavily liberal state (California), who say that they don't know anyone who has been talked down to, spit on, called a baby killer or assaulted in any way for being in the milirtary, and I have family in the Airforce as well who say the same thing.

I'm willing to bet that as a former infantryman with many, many friends in the infantry now, I have far more friends in the military than you do.

How many stories would you have to hear before you think it's a trend?

I'm not sure why they're describing what they were wearing. Are criminals unable to change clothes now?

In case anyone saw people who looked like the suspects, wore the same clothing, and drove the same vehicle fleeing the scene of the crime. Those people could then give the police any additional information, such as which way the suspects were going, which could help the police arrest them. It makes sense really.

I'm willing to bet that as a former infantryman with many, many friends in the infantry now, I have far more friends in the military than you do.

How many stories would you have to hear before you think it's a trend?


I am talking about people currently in the military and living by the base in San Diego (now - they were living in Washington previously - where this assault happened) - I'm willing to bet that they know more people currently in the military than you do. They would likely have heard some stories if it was a trend. I'll believe its a trend when people I know and trust say it is.

We've all had the threads about whether or not people were hostile to returning Vietnam veterans, and whether or not people called them baby killers. In fact, some people think that both of those things are urban legend, and have no basis in fact.

I can tell you from personal experience it was no "urban legend" that those of us returning from Viet Nam and Thialand were greeted with hostility and called baby killers. :mad:

weeeeeee, DK and Sumamba in a pissing contest..


DK: i have more friends that you.
S: no you don't, i have more.
DK: nuh uh.
S: uh huh...


:rolleyes:

c'mon.

weeeeeee, DK and Sumamba in a pissing contest..


DK: i have more friends that you.
S: no you don't, i have more.
DK: nuh uh.
S: uh huh...


:rolleyes:

c'mon.

*piss piss piss piss*

I think the idea is that people say that it occurred regularly during the Vietnam Era, and the dissenters saying that this wasn't the case. I'm not certain if anyone has said it didn't occur at all, just that it didn't regularly occur.

It happened regularly, in fact almost daily at the airprot in San Francisco.

I think Vietnam itself is an urban legend. Just like Baltimore.

How many stories would you have to hear before you think it's a trend?

You know, we would all take this much more seriously if this sort of article wasn't just used as a way of painting war-objectors with a broad brush. Frankly, given that the sole purpose of pointing out this trend tends to be "Look at those ebil, soldier-hating lefties", you shouldn't be suprised no one is taking you seriously.

Yes, there are violent, intollerant shmucks on both sides of party lines. That doesn't make them indicitive of a trend amongst rational, peaceful people who oppose the war, but not the people fighting it.

But that doesn't fit the nice, neat extreme-hawk version of the truth that allows you to hate all doves for what their extremists do, now does it?

*piss piss piss piss*

hey man! i just mopped there!

:throws the mop at you: clean it up mister!

I think Vietnam itself is an urban legend. Just like Baltimore.

well, my boss "supposedly" visited there a few months back...

Wow. One wouldn't think that attacking a combat veteran would be that good of an idea.

You know, we would all take this much more seriously if this sort of article wasn't just used as a way of painting war-objectors with a broad brush.

You know, I would take your posts more seriously if you weren't in the habit of assuming that I'm painting war objectors with a broad brush.

I'm merely making the overt, evidentiary statement, that this has indeed occurred. Maybe you weren't here when it was argued here on NS General that this had NEVER, EVER occurred during the Vietnam War, and that if no news source could be found that it happened, then no matter how many people said, "it happened to me" it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

So here is the evidence that this time around, it most definitely happened. I didn't say, in any post, that this was applicable to ALL anti-war protesters.

YOU did that. Freudian slip?

Wow. You wouldn't think that anti-war activists would be so violent. But it was obvious that they were anti-war activists because they...uhm, attacked a soldier! Right!

And we know why they attacked a soldier. It's because they were anti-war activists.;)

You know, I would take your posts more seriously if you weren't in the habit of assuming that I'm painting war objectors with a broad brush.

I'm merely making the overt, evidentiary statement, that this has indeed occurred. Maybe you weren't here when it was argued here on NS General that this had NEVER, EVER occurred during the Vietnam War, and that if no news source could be found that it happened, then no matter how many people said, "it happened to me" it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

So here is the evidence that this time around, it most definitely happened. I didn't say, in any post, that this was applicable to ALL anti-war protesters.

YOU did that. Freudian slip?

Need I source the number of times people like this have been used as a slander against all anti-war protesters.

Let alone the irony of your own post...

Wow. You wouldn't think that anti-war activists would be so violent. But it was obvious that they were anti-war activists because they...uhm, attacked a soldier! Right!

And we know why they attacked a soldier. It's because they were anti-war activists.;)

Pretty obvious that some anti-war people are violent. Remember, that violence is always good if your side does it.

My blessings go out to that soldier. And does anybody else find it hypocritical that these "pacifists" (who probably believe the war was for oil) were dirivng a gas-guzzling SUV (as stated in the article)? :mad:

Need I source the number of times people like this have been used as a slander against all anti-war protesters.

Let alone the irony of your own post...

Need I point out that the incident is true? Is the truth about these particular anti-war protesters somehow a slander against those particular anti-war protesters?

Or are you worried that people will somehow, idiotically, think that all anti-war protesters will do this?

Pretty obvious that some anti-war people are violent. Remember, that violence is always good if your side does it.

Indeed. I was trying to point out, though, that the article shows no indication that these assholes were anti-war activists.

However, regardless of their motivations, I hope they are captured and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Or are you worried that people will somehow, idiotically, think that all anti-war protesters will do this?

Why... Yes.

Yes... I am!

Amazing. It only took you two posts to figure out that I was aware of how extreme-hawks spin this sort of incident!

Yes, I do worry that this sort of thing is used as a label against anyone who opposes the war. And I've seen evidence enough that people will jump on it as a reason to hate anyone who dissagrees with the war.

Need I point out that the incident is true? Is the truth about these particular anti-war protesters somehow a slander against those particular anti-war protesters?


No. I'm not arguing that this is true. I'm arguing that it will be used to slander people who aren't guilty in typical political guilt by association.

We've all had the threads about whether or not people were hostile to returning Vietnam veterans, and whether or not people called them baby killers.

No, we've had threads about whether or not Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned. Nice attempt at revisionism, there DK.

No, we've had threads about whether or not Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned. Nice attempt at revisionism, there DK.

Yep, they did spit on us. I consider that a hostile act.

I can tell you from personal experience it was no "urban legend" that those of us returning from Viet Nam and Thialand were greeted with hostility and called baby killers. :mad:
I'm not surprised. Some of those who returned had killed babies, some no doubt (or at least is my understanding) had done so intentionally - an obviously reprehensible act. As is intentionally beating or violently shaking one's own infant resulting in that infant's death, as some parents no doubt do. None the less it'd be odd if people suddenly starting greeting every parent of an infant with hostility and taunted them with "baby killer".


Clearly humans are capable of a fairly impressive degree of rationality, equally clearly some not insignificant number of them have a propensity to refuse to employ even a marginal degree of rationality in at least some contexts...

There seems to be a fairly general lip-service paid to an abhorrance of 'mob-mentality', 'fanatism' and violent hostility based on 'in group' versus 'not in group/ambiguously positioned re group' aggression, yet when it comes to walking the talk you get (apparently not insignificant numbers of) people spitting and beating up on each other, be they returning servicemen, dissenters at political rallies, or if all else fails supporters of the 'wrong' sports team....

As for the hoodlums referred to in the OP, I'm again not surprised that such an event occured, disgusted but not surprised. Frankly if there wasnt a 'you just got back from the war' 'excuse', some other nominal pretext or even no reason at all would have sufficed.

People like that do what they do because that's the kind of people they are. It's one thing to get subsumed in a mob and act irrationally without forethought (although still not excusable), it's a whole other thing to initiate a contact on the hope that you'll have some excuse to commit bodily violence as a result.

It's one thing to be someone who could get 'caught up', it's a whole other thing to be one of those people 'out looking' for someone to hurt. These criminals and their ilk are a menace to our society, regardless of the 'victim-target-profile' they happen to pick - it's simply window dressing so they can pat each other on the back instead of facing up to the fact that they are just common thugs. :mad:

Correct reaction, wrong victim. They should've picked a politician to kick...

You are serious arent you?

Yep, they did spit on us.
So sez you.
I consider that a hostile act.
So file a lawsuit, buddy - or quit bitching, one or the other.

It happened regularly, in fact almost daily at the airprot in San Francisco.Was it by different people each time, or the same person(s)?

Why... Yes.

Yes... I am!

Amazing. It only took you two posts to figure out that I was aware of how extreme-hawks spin this sort of incident!

Yes, I do worry that this sort of thing is used as a label against anyone who opposes the war. And I've seen evidence enough that people will jump on it as a reason to hate anyone who dissagrees with the war.



No. I'm not arguing that this is true. I'm arguing that it will be used to slander people who aren't guilty in typical political guilt by association.


So what is the answer to your concerns? That nothing which shines bad light on any anti war group or individual ever be posted whether it is true or not? That would certainly keep people from idiotically thinking that all anti-war groups were like this. It would make you a political news censor however. Good for how your political views are seen but bad for truth and freedom of speech. Try to trust people to see that not all war protestors are like this group for fuck's sake rather than trusting them to be idiots and lambasting for posting a real incident.

So what is the answer to your concerns? That nothing which shines bad light on any anti war group or individual ever be posted whether it is true or not? That would certainly keep people from idiotically thinking that all anti-war groups were like this. It would make you a political news censor however. Good for how your political views are seen but bad for truth and freedom of speech. Try to trust people to see that not all war protestors are like this group for fuck's sake rather than trusting them to be idiots and lambasting for posting a real incident.


I'm quite impressed by how the debate is about how this portrays anti-war activists, rather than whether or not this even constitutes anti-war activism.

To me this seems more like a bunch of drunk, violent assholes who talked themselves up into believing they were tough guys who could take on a trained soldier, but were just a bunch of cowards.

Yet because the OP and subsequent posts assumed the attackers were anti-war activists, we get stuck in a debate that may have nothing to do with the incident.

I'm quite impressed by how the debate is about how this portrays anti-war activists, rather than whether or not this even constitutes anti-war activism.

To me this seems more like a bunch of drunk, violent assholes who talked themselves up into believing they were tough guys who could take on a trained soldier, but were just a bunch of cowards.

Yet because the OP and subsequent posts assumed the attackers were anti-war activists, we get stuck in a debate that may have nothing to do with the incident.
Ah, who else would call someone a baby killer, and ask, before attacking, whether someone was a soldier or not?

As for your assertion, it's no different from the posts I've seen here where because some soldiers do something atrocious, it's characterized as being representative of ALL soldiers.

Ah, who else would call someone a baby killer, and ask, before attacking, whether someone was a soldier or not?

As for your assertion, it's no different from the posts I've seen here where because some soldiers do something atrocious, it's characterized as being representative of ALL soldiers.

Someone who was looking to pick a fight with a soldier would ask someone if they were a soldier. And to piss the soldier off, he would call the soldier a baby-killer. You know, because he's an asshole. That doesn't require a political agenda.

I do not understand your second paragraph. What is my assertion? How does it relate to generalisations about soldiers?

I'm quite impressed by how the debate is about how this portrays anti-war activists, rather than whether or not this even constitutes anti-war activism.

To me this seems more like a bunch of drunk, violent assholes who talked themselves up into believing they were tough guys who could take on a trained soldier, but were just a bunch of cowards.

Yet because the OP and subsequent posts assumed the attackers were anti-war activists, we get stuck in a debate that may have nothing to do with the incident.

It seems anti war to ask before attacking if the victim has seen action. It certainly seems anti war to call the victim a baby killer. I think that term is nearly the exclusive property of the various anti war groups when used in anger. Surely jumping on top of the guy and kicking him would count as activism and not passive resistance? Sorry but this fits the definition of anti war activist. It isnt the best way to go about anti war activism but it is a way of doing so.

I do not understand your second paragraph. What is my assertion? How does it relate to generalisations about soldiers?

Are you dense?

The generalization has been made MANY times here about how the behavior of a few soldiers (such as at Abu Gharib) means that ALL soldiers are like that.

Usually by the very same people who deny that any anti-war person would ever do anything bad to a soldier.

Usually by the very same people who object to any generalization about anti-war people.

Usually by the very same people who want to cover up anything bad done by any individual anti-war person, because they don't want to look bad.

Are you dense?

The generalization has been made MANY times here about how the behavior of a few soldiers (such as at Abu Gharib) means that ALL soldiers are like that.

Usually by the very same people who deny that any anti-war person would ever do anything bad to a soldier.

Usually by the very same people who object to any generalization about anti-war people.

Usually by the very same people who want to cover up anything bad done by any individual anti-war person, because they don't want to look bad.

What does all that have to do with this incident now?

Ah, who else would call someone a baby killer, and ask, before attacking, whether someone was a soldier or not?

As for your assertion, it's no different from the posts I've seen here where because some soldiers do something atrocious, it's characterized as being representative of ALL soldiers.

Oh, a spazzed out anti-abortionist might. I mean, they've shot and bombed people before, so beating a guy up is small fry.

It seems anti war to ask before attacking if the victim has seen action. It certainly seems anti war to call the victim a baby killer. I think that term is nearly the exclusive property of the various anti war groups when used in anger. Surely jumping on top of the guy and kicking him would count as activism and not passive resistance? Sorry but this fits the definition of anti war activist. It isnt the best way to go about anti war activism but it is a way of doing so.

Yes, I can see how the idea that they were anti-war activists could explain the facts. But my scenario of some drunken frat boys (back to school!) daring each other to take on a trained soldier could also explain the facts.

I also believe that in North America there is a belief that anti-war activism is somehow synonymous with disrespect of soldiers and veterans. And I believe that myth is partly responsible for some people's assumptions about this incident.

As a citizen of a free country, I would be the first in condemning these attacks on those who would risk their lives for the freedom of me and my family. As an anti-war activist, I would additionally condemn these people for acting in my name if it turns out these people did have such a political agenda for their attack.

But I will not allow any assumptions to go unchallenged.

Are you dense?

The generalization has been made MANY times here about how the behavior of a few soldiers (such as at Abu Gharib) means that ALL soldiers are like that.


Only in your demented little brain has that happened. In all of the debates over Abu Ghraib, we were always careful to say that what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't indicative of the entire military, although we did point out that Abu Ghraib wasn't an isolated incident. You see, there's this place called the middle--you might want to check it out sometime. :rolleyes:

What does all that have to do with this incident now?

If you read the thread, someone is saying that we shouldn't slander ALL anti-war people for the behavior of a few.

Well, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. There's been plenty of slander to go around for ALL soldiers for the behavior of a few.

So get ready for the sauce. Every story that I run across like this will be all over this forum.

Only in your demented little brain has that happened. In all of the debates over Abu Ghraib, we were always careful to say that what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't indicative of the entire military, although we did point out that Abu Ghraib wasn't an isolated incident. You see, there's this place called the middle--you might want to check it out sometime. :rolleyes:

Jeezus Iced Christ is this entire thread only going to consist of mad posturing?

I can easily see how you might have always been careful about how you phrased any statement about Abu Ghraib. How exactly did you make certain that some vague "we" were always careful to frame statements about Abu Ghraib being isolated? I'll tell you how. You didnt and you couldnt. It's crazy to say so. Quit it. Please.

I said:I'm quite impressed by how the debate is about how this portrays anti-war activists, rather than whether or not this even constitutes anti-war activism.

To me this seems more like a bunch of drunk, violent assholes who talked themselves up into believing they were tough guys who could take on a trained soldier, but were just a bunch of cowards.

Yet because the OP and subsequent posts assumed the attackers were anti-war activists, we get stuck in a debate that may have nothing to do with the incident.

You replied with this:As for your assertion, it's no different from the posts I've seen here where because some soldiers do something atrocious, it's characterized as being representative of ALL soldiers.

I do not understand your second paragraph. What is my assertion? How does it relate to generalisations about soldiers?

Are you dense?

The generalization has been made MANY times here about how the behavior of a few soldiers (such as at Abu Gharib) means that ALL soldiers are like that.

Usually by the very same people who deny that any anti-war person would ever do anything bad to a soldier.

Usually by the very same people who object to any generalization about anti-war people.

Usually by the very same people who want to cover up anything bad done by any individual anti-war person, because they don't want to look bad.

I object to any generalization about anti-war people.
I also object to generalisations about soldiers, Moslems, Christians, US citizens, and almost anybody except politicians.

That says nothing about my assertion that the attackers may not have been anti-war activists.

I am not dense. I am wondering why you replied to my post with a non-sequitur.

If you read the thread, someone is saying that we shouldn't slander ALL anti-war people for the behavior of a few.

Well, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. There's been plenty of slander to go around for ALL soldiers for the behavior of a few.

So get ready for the sauce. Every story that I run across like this will be all over this forum.

I did read the thread. Your earlier staement had nothing to do with the thread. You didnt slander all anti war protesters. Remember that besides good what's sick for the goose is sick for the gander as well.

If anyone here could find any statements made by anybody on this board where all soldiers were blamed for the actions of a few I'd be surprised.

Not bad, you are just as bad with the accusations saying that only an antiwar activist could call someone a baby killer as if it isnt possible that it could have just been someone trying to start shit for no reason.

That says nothing about my assertion that the attackers may not have been anti-war activists.

If they aren't anti-war activists, then there are no US soldiers at Guantanamo.

Your assertion is bullshit, and you know it. You're just looking for any out you can.

I did read the thread. Your earlier staement had nothing to do with the thread. You didnt slander all anti war protesters. Remember that besides good what's sick for the goose is sick for the gander as well.

He said it was a trend. What he showsed was one instance and it could have been some idiot antiwar guys (doubtful if they had a gun) or it could have been some assholes looking for a fight to prove how tough they are. For all we know the military guy in question could have been lying because he hates antiwar protestors.

If they aren't anti-war activists, then there are no US soldiers at Guantanamo.

Your assertion is bullshit, and you know it. You're just looking for any out you can.


Deep Kimchi, I am attempting to be civil with you. Please try to reciprocate. I believe that your assertion that these douchebags are anti-war activists is plausible. I also believe that my assertion that they are a bunch of drunk bullies is just as plausible. We can debate whose is more logical in a civilised manner.

You have shown no proof that your assertion is any more plausible than mine.

He said it was a trend. What he showsed was one instance and it could have been some idiot antiwar guys (doubtful if they had a gun) or it could have been some assholes looking for a fight to prove how tough they are. For all we know the military guy in question could have been lying because he hates antiwar protestors.

I've seen the trend myself, and so have my friends. Just because YOU haven't seen it and your friends haven't, doesn't mean it isn't a trend.

What would it take for you? Actual massacres live on CNN?

So what is the answer to your concerns? That nothing which shines bad light on any anti war group or individual ever be posted whether it is true or not? That would certainly keep people from idiotically thinking that all anti-war groups were like this. It would make you a political news censor however. Good for how your political views are seen but bad for truth and freedom of speech. Try to trust people to see that not all war protestors are like this group for fuck's sake rather than trusting them to be idiots and lambasting for posting a real incident.

I'm taking an active hand in preventing the spin from occuring. Obviously that news which people want to post should be posted. I'm just preventing the obviously false spin from occuring.

We've all had the threads about whether or not people were hostile to returning Vietnam veterans, and whether or not people called them baby killers. In fact, some people think that both of those things are urban legend, and have no basis in fact.

Well, it's not an urban legend for currently returning soldiers.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html
The story has since been updated:

New Questions In Case Of Attack On Guardsman (http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html)

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 9:21 am PDT September 1, 2006

PARKLAND, Wash. -- Authorities are continuing to investigate a National Guardsman's claim that he was attacked earlier this week in Parkland and called "a baby killer."

A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.

The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.

Investigators said the witness's stories were inconsistent with the guardsman's, and they are back to "square one" in the investigation.
Soooo, just what is the truth?

*dabs Urban Legend stamp in inkpad.... :p

I've seen the trend myself, and so have my friends. Just because YOU haven't seen it and your friends haven't, doesn't mean it isn't a trend.

What would it take for you? Actual massacres live on CNN?

Like I already said and you somehow missed - I would have to hear about this happening from people I know and trust. My friends in the Marines who have not encoutnered this and have not heard of this happenign to fellow Marines while living in a state known for it's antiwar activism makes yoru claim that it is a trend quite dubious indeed.

The story has since been updated:

New Questions In Case Of Attack On Guardsman (http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html)

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 9:21 am PDT September 1, 2006


Soooo, just what is the truth?

*dabs Urban Legend stamp in inkpad.... :p


ooops! :eek:

Not bad, you are just as bad with the accusations saying that only an antiwar activist could call someone a baby killer as if it isnt possible that it could have just been someone trying to start shit for no reason.

If the soldier's story to the police is accurate then the attackers words and actions are indeed those of anti war activists. These are the only things by which we can judge things such as anti-war activist or not anti-war activist. What is in their hearts nobody knows. I did not "accuse" them of being anti war activists as if that was some sort of crime. It is not nor should it be despite your inferrence. I Identified them as anti war activists by their actions and their words. All of this hinges upon the word of the soldier of course but again if what he told the police is true then his attackers are anti war activists by any but the most obscuring of definitions.

If the soldier's story to the police is accurate then the attackers words and actions are indeed those of anti war activists. These are the only things by which we can judge things such as anti-war activist or not anti-war activist. What is in their hearts nobody knows. I did not "accuse" them of being anti war activists as if that was some sort of crime. It is not nor should it be despite your inferrence. I Identified them as anti war activists by their actions and their words. All of this hinges upon the word of the soldier of course but again if what he told the police is true then his attackers are anti war activists by any but the most obscuring of definitions.

Like I said - you are just as bad because you take the alleged words to mean that they are indeed antiwar activists when it doesnt necessarily make it so. Besides wouldn that make them anti-baby killign activists? They didnt say anythign about being against war.

Wait-I thought you were against violence

I think it was more the expression of blaiming the wrong person for the war ... not ACTUALY advocating violence

I'm just saying that I've heard many people say that it never happened during the Vietnam Era.

It's certainly happened now. Undeniably.


Unless the 'soldier' in question was specificlly targetted for getting the driver's sister pregnant, and then forcing her to get an abortion or something. (Hence, 'baby killer'... I fear you may be allowing your own thoughts to colour the facts).

If the story is true, at all... how many witnesses have come forward...?

So often, leftists get tagged with adjectives such as "loony", "commies", "pinkos", "hippies", etc., I wonder what the "right wing" reaction is to this story?

Even though this story is bare bones, we have the following reaction from the Free Republic (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1692893/posts):

The guardsman's unit should do an APB for the perps and offer some payback, Abu Ghraib style!

Make NO mistake; Liberal Terrorists at work. . .and a hate-crime in action.
I hope these Neanderthals - with apologies to the originals - are caught or 'found'. . .and are dealt an immediate Justice.

. . .from whomEVER and HOWever.

Just reading this is enough to make any reasonable. . .normal person. . .sick and ashamed.

If these people mysteriously disappear and are never heard from again, it won't bother me a bit.

I bet these meatheads don't even get the irony of their actions. Leftist hypocrites.

Given the way the MSM and the Democrats are feeding the left wing loony fire and, at the same time, playing to radical Islamist justifications, this kind of thing is just going to spread.

Each report will breed at least one copycat.

Slowly, but surely, we are moving toward a civil war.

Hate crime for sure; too bad active duty military isn't a protected "minority".

This should be a capital offense.

Cowards.
The only thing filth like this ever fought for is another eggo waffle from their incestuous mother.

Unfortunately a few made it through the left's abortion process...

The "peace and love" crowd show their true colors!

Hey, thanks for helping make the world a safer place for our daughter to grow up in. Carla and I are 100% behind the troops and the mission. We just wish that the loony left realized that the terrorists want to kill them and their kids too! Oh, wait; that's right - most of them kill their own kids before they have their first breath. Silly me! I guess they have something in common with the terrorists after all.
The wonderful benefits of a progressive democratic country??? :rolleyes:

The story has since been updated:

New Questions In Case Of Attack On Guardsman (http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html)

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 9:21 am PDT September 1, 2006


Soooo, just what is the truth?

*dabs Urban Legend stamp in inkpad.... :p

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought that it would be hilarious if whatever DK posted turned out to be a UL or something similiar.

The story has since been updated:

New Questions In Case Of Attack On Guardsman (http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html)

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 9:21 am PDT September 1, 2006


Soooo, just what is the truth?

*dabs Urban Legend stamp in inkpad.... :p

Um we will just ignore that one :p j/k looks bad on the part of DK

Like I said - you are just as bad because you take the alleged words to mean that they are indeed antiwar activists when it doesnt necessarily make it so. Besides wouldn that make them anti-baby killign activists? They didnt say anythign about being against war.

Actually they called him a baby killer during the attack. They made certain he had actively participated in a war before attacking.

The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

Actually they called him a baby killer during the attack. They made certain he had actively participated in a war before attacking.

And, you just assumed those two ideas were connected?

Actually they called him a baby killer during the attack. They made certain he had actively participated in a war before attacking.


So he says. Looks like witnesses may have another story.

Either way you are making an assumption of fact based on something said - it doesnt make it the necessary truth.

So he says. Looks like witnesses may have another story.

Either way you are making an assumption of fact based on something said - it doesnt make it the necessary truth.

Indeed. It is beginning to look like, ironically, this thread has 'debunked' urban legend accusations, with what might yet transpire to be nothing more than an urban legend.

So he says. Looks like witnesses may have another story.

Either way you are making an assumption of fact based on something said - it doesnt make it the necessary truth.

As I stated earlier nobody can judge whether or not anyone is an antiwar activist except by their words and their actions. Except apparantly you. How do you judge if someone is an antiwar activist? Do you read their thoughts?

If the soldiers story is true then the reprehensible dimwits who attacked him left every indication that they are antiwar and acted upon it. If they had attacked a black man and had asked him if he was black then attacked him shouting racial slurs it would be obvious to virtually anyone that they were racist activists. However in this case it was not racial so objective reason is tossed aside for whatever reason.

As I stated earlier nobody can judge whether or not anyone is an antiwar activist except by their words and their actions. Except apparantly you. How do you judge if someone is an antiwar activist? Do you read their thoughts?

If the soldiers story is true then the reprehensible dimwits who attacked him left every indication that they are antiwar and acted upon it. If they had attacked a black man and had asked him if he was black then attacked him shouting racial slurs it would be obvious to virtually anyone that they were racist activists. However in this case it was not racial so objective reason is tossed aside for whatever reason.

I agree with you that, if the story in the OP were true that it makes them LOOK like they were antiwar (and I already said that it is possible) but disagree that there is no doubt as to their true motivations because of stuff like having a gun and using violence to show that they dont believe in violence.

As I stated earlier nobody can judge whether or not anyone is an antiwar activist except by their words and their actions. Except apparantly you. How do you judge if someone is an antiwar activist? Do you read their thoughts?

If the soldiers story is true then the reprehensible dimwits who attacked him left every indication that they are antiwar and acted upon it. If they had attacked a black man and had asked him if he was black then attacked him shouting racial slurs it would be obvious to virtually anyone that they were racist activists. However in this case it was not racial so objective reason is tossed aside for whatever reason.

It has to be said, though... there was a witness, who has changed accounts. In one version of the witness testimony, what the guardsman says happened is not supported - indeed, the events are described almost EXACTLY the opposite way.

The question then, is how do we decide about antiwar sentiments, when we have no verifiable way of knowing what WAS said, at all?

You see my point? The 'antiwar' sentiment only features in one, contested, account?

Add to which - 'babykiller' is more often an accusation levelled against pro-choice advocates, than against soldiers.

If we take the whole story as true, and the verbal commentary as accurate, it would not be illogical to assume that our passing vehicle was a bunch of militant anti-abortionists attacking someone who may be involved in the pro-choice platform.

Under those circumstances, the 'active duty' comments become nothing more than a 'tough guy, eh?' taunt.


As I said to the other poster - you are allowing your own ideas of what transpired to colour the facts.

I've seen the trend myself, and so have my friends. Just because YOU haven't seen it and your friends haven't, doesn't mean it isn't a trend.

What would it take for you? Actual massacres live on CNN?

You regularly tell us not to believe the media, who are at least in some way accountable to the public, yet you ask us to believe you.....

And you regularly castigate CNN et al for not accurately portraying the war, yet you say we should believe it if it will support your argument.

Nice.

You regularly tell us not to believe the media, who are at least in some way accountable to the public, yet you ask us to believe you.....

And you regularly castigate CNN et al for not accurately portraying the war, yet you say we should believe it if it will support your argument.

Nice.
It is a bit of a corner DK has painted himself into, as far as the media is concerned.

It is a bit of a corner DK has painted himself into, as far as the media is concerned.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Hilarious, isn't it?
For us. He'll never even acknowledge that it's a problem.

For us. He'll never even acknowledge that it's a problem.

Oh, of course not. DK could never be wrong...

It has to be said, though... there was a witness, who has changed accounts. In one version of the witness testimony, what the guardsman says happened is not supported - indeed, the events are described almost EXACTLY the opposite way.

The question then, is how do we decide about antiwar sentiments, when we have no verifiable way of knowing what WAS said, at all?

You see my point? The 'antiwar' sentiment only features in one, contested, account?

Add to which - 'babykiller' is more often an accusation levelled against pro-choice advocates, than against soldiers.

If we take the whole story as true, and the verbal commentary as accurate, it would not be illogical to assume that our passing vehicle was a bunch of militant anti-abortionists attacking someone who may be involved in the pro-choice platform.

Under those circumstances, the 'active duty' comments become nothing more than a 'tough guy, eh?' taunt.


As I said to the other poster - you are allowing your own ideas of what transpired to colour the facts.

I have said frequently in this thread that it all hinges upon whether or not the guardsman has told the truth. Your anti abortion scenario is of course senseless. I dont disbelieve or believe the guardsman. I have to disbelieve at least one or more account by any eyewitness who changes stories however.

I agree with you that, if the story in the OP were true that it makes them LOOK like they were antiwar (and I already said that it is possible) but disagree that there is no doubt as to their true motivations because of stuff like having a gun and using violence to show that they dont believe in violence.

This is not a problem for those who love human life so much that they blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors who perform abortions. I see no reason to believe that each and every anti war person is immune to the common human foible of hypocrisy in their own moral make up. I'd be surprised beyond all repair if I were to find out that there was never any violence involved in any anti war activity.

This is not a problem for those who love human life so much that they blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors who perform abortions. I see no reason to believe that each and every anti war person is immune to the common human foible of hypocrisy in their own moral make up. I'd be surprised beyond all repair if I were to find out that there was never any violence involved in any anti war activity.

Of course, let's not forget that anti-war =/= anti-violence.

Hmm. The description of the attackers sounds like members of some sort of white supremacist gang. Doesn't really fit the sentiment, though, unless it's motivated by some sort of anarchist or anti-government ideas.

More likely that they're just militant-left assholes, though it's definitely odd that they would be young white males wearing the same color, that color being red. Though that is a color historically associated with communism.

Actually most white supremacists are opposed to the war in Iraq (as well as the one in Afghanistan) because they see it as serving the interess of the "evil Zionist conspiracy" they fear so much. :rolleyes:

For us. He'll never even acknowledge that it's a problem.

It's not a problem here, because I talked to the police in question on the phone.

So I've verified the story. Which is more than you do with your posts.

It is a bit of a corner DK has painted himself into, as far as the media is concerned.

Thanks for pointing that out. If people wonder why I sometimes blow my stack at Kimchi - well, this is where it starts. Of course, his smug, self-satisfied arrogance doesn't help either.

Whoops! I posted an opinion! I better watch out - DK'll take me to task for saying something while clearly being guilty of not being an American. I'll just save him (or Atlantian Islands or DesignatedMarksman) the trouble and tell myself to stfu.

Stfu, Dobbsworld - your opinion doesn't mean shit unless you've got a green card! :upyours:

Actually, I question how an event that took place in the twenty-first century proves that another event took place in the twentieth.

I have said frequently in this thread that it all hinges upon whether or not the guardsman has told the truth. Your anti abortion scenario is of course senseless. I dont disbelieve or believe the guardsman. I have to disbelieve at least one or more account by any eyewitness who changes stories however.

How is it senseless? JUST because you don't like it?

'Babykiller' is a term that is most commonly used in talk about abortion.

Thus - it is logical to assume that it could be referring to that same issue here.

You have no argument against that, except that YOU believe that the guardsman is accurately recording a true event AND you believe that the questions about 'active duty' and the comments about 'babykillers' are connected.

You have already done the whole judge, jury and excutioner bit.

Indeed - you have already discounted a witness account, because the account has been changed... and yet you have no idea WHY the account ws changed. If this witness had been threatened, it would hardly be the first time.

It's not a problem here, because I talked to the police in question on the phone.

So I've verified the story. Which is more than you do with your posts.

And the police said that the investigation was back to square one, yes?

So - you haven't verified the story... just that there might BE a story.

(Maybe worth commenting on the fact that, in most cases, the police are not even allowed to discuss a case under investigation... it seems unlikely they can have told you anything worthwhile).

And the police said that the investigation was back to square one, yes?

So - you haven't verified the story... just that there might BE a story.

(Maybe worth commenting on the fact that, in most cases, the police are not even allowed to discuss a case under investigation... it seems unlikely they can have told you anything worthwhile).

Depends on whether or not they think you're a fellow law enforcement officer.

Depends on whether or not they think you're a fellow law enforcement officer.

Not really.

I mean - if you want to break laws by pretending to be a peace officer, or if you are gullible enough to believe that a 'casual' conversation might be worth anything... well, more power to you.

Me - I'd put more faith in provable facts.