Sheehan now a borderline anti-American

Status
Not open for further replies.

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟13,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wolf Georges said:
Fair enough but your early statements implied that the search for WMDs wasn't part of their mission at all. I have no desire to split hairs with you. We can just leave this as a point of contention.


Done.

Wolf Georges said:
I don't see how being open to form opinions as facts become available is comparable with being a Monday morning quarterback. This is not a game and none of us are merely spectators. If we do not hold our leaders accountable for their actions then we are letting liberty slip through our fingers.

We formed our opinion over 12+ years. How much longer should we have waited... especially in the light of 911?

Wolf Georges said:
Well, we'll just have to leave this as it is. In your opinion the facts justified the means. Had WMDs been found this would be a much different conversation. They were not. The possibility of WMDs and the possibility of global terrorist ties does not make a justification for war. That's my opinion.

And I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why? Is that beyond muslims?
IMO, yeah. People's underlying presuppositions are directly influenced by their religion. Let's face it, the US Constitution is a purely Calvinist document, written by men who believed in total depravity. That's why they didn't intrust the central gov't with any more power than they could avoid; they knew it would inevitably be abused. If the Constitution had been written by Catholics or Unitarians, it would have been different.

Muslims see the state existing to enforce the will of Allah, and the idea of "separation of church and state" so dear to us is altogether alien to them. In their opinion, Sharia law comes from the mouth of God Himself, so the closer the gov't comes to that standard, the more nearly perfect it is.

Will the Iraqi people opt for the Sharia model or the secularist model? I don't think there's any real question there; these are people who are kneeling on their rugs 5 times a day. You really believe they're gonna say "Nah, this Islamic gov't stuff is too stout for us. We just want a nice tolerant state on the model of the US, aka The Great Satan." ? If so, I have some land down in Collier County, Florida I'd like to sell you.
 
Upvote 0

arnegrim

...still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Jun 2, 2004
4,852
140
California
✟13,223.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jipsah said:
IMO, yeah. People's underlying presuppositions are directly influenced by their religion. Let's face it, the US Constitution is a purely Calvinist document, written by men who believed in total depravity. That's why they didn't intrust the central gov't with any more power than they could avoid; they knew it would inevitably be abused. If the Constitution had been written by Catholics or Unitarians, it would have been different.

Muslims see the state existing to enforce the will of Allah, and the idea of "separation of church and state" so dear to us is altogether alien to them. In their opinion, Sharia law comes from the mouth of God Himself, so the closer the gov't comes to that standard, the more nearly perfect it is.

Will the Iraqi people opt for the Sharia model or the secularist model? I don't think there's any real question there; these are people who are kneeling on their rugs 5 times a day. You really believe they're gonna say "Nah, this Islamic gov't stuff is too stout for us. We just want a nice tolerant state on the model of the US, aka The Great Satan." ? If so, I have some land down in Collier County, Florida I'd like to sell you.

And yet there are points in the current draft of the constitution that many Westerners would think is against Sharia law...

Just because it's not a carbon copy of the US constitution does not make it bad or wrong.
 
Upvote 0

girlieman

Active Member
Aug 11, 2005
261
20
54
USA
✟502.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
minus said:
Sheehan has lost her son in a war she doesn’t believe in. She is obviously very upset about it. Let her grieve, to do otherwise is inhumane. To call her anti-American is just immature.
I understand her grief in a way. I have lost a son. UnAmerican? No. Unpatriotic? If she keeps getting louder and shriller against our troops and nation then she will fall into the sedition category with me. The loss of your child does not give you the right to become a traitor.:doh:
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,701.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
MaryS said:
Some Hamas members have alleged that Jewish people were responsible for the French Revolution, "Western colonialism," and both World Wars.

Hey that's interesting, kinda in the same vein the Christian population of Europe blamed the Jews for the Black Death. Thankfully the West has moved beyond such nonsense (well, at least since 1945)...
 
Upvote 0

Wolf Georges

Active Member
Feb 15, 2005
359
41
56
NNJ
✟695.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
girlieman said:
I understand her grief in a way. I have lost a son. UnAmerican? No. Unpatriotic? If she keeps getting louder and shriller against our troops and nation then she will fall into the sedition category with me. The loss of your child does not give you the right to become a traitor.:doh:

To label her misguided vitriol sedition is giving her way too much credit. Questioning the actions of a President is not seditious, she is well within her rights. When her words start to give rise to a rebellion...a real rebellion armed with more than banners and mock graves...we may have something to worry about. Other than a headache I don't think her loud shrill voice is a danger to our country.

Everyone processes grief differently. I am sorry for the loss that you have both felt and pray for you both.
 
Upvote 0

Scribbler

Ignoring all links to Huffington Post
Dec 9, 2004
7,344
631
54
right behind you.
Visit site
✟25,722.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
USincognito said:
Hey that's interesting, kinda in the same vein the Christian population of Europe blamed the Jews for the Black Death.
You'd compare a medeival 'Christian' population with a modern Muslim one? I guess this shows how the two religions are exactly the same.
USincognito said:
Thankfully the West has moved beyond such nonsense (well, at least since 1945)...
Funny, I thought it was the west that liberated those Jews and financed their nation.:doh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MaryS

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,350
137
✟3,195.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
llondy said:
The only brainwashing going on here is from those that attempt to revise History and present it as truth. Atrocities against Palestinians? I guess you will be able to explain to us why 1 million arabs can live with 6 million Jews in Peace within Israel, but 6,000 Jews can't live with your beloved Palestinians in Gaza.

Please go find a History book that has not yet been revised and find out What Nazi Germany was all about, and who the Palestinian people really are, then perhaps we can have a discussion in a thread in which the topic realtes to it.

I often wonder what the people calling themselves "Palestinians" would call themselves if Jordan had been named Palestine when the British released the Palestinian land to the people who created Jordan.

The following article includes information from a Jewish woman who was born and Egypt and was denied Egyptian citizenship:

http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/blog/articles/interview/bat-yeor.html
(excerpt:
The Palestinian state has existed since 1922 on 78% of Palestine. This is Jordan, whose population belongs to the same Arab stock that began to be called Palestinian from the 1970s, the name that was attributed to Judea in 135 by a Roman Emperor, Hadrian. There were no Arabs then, or Muslims.

The Arab invaders arrived in the 7th century, devastated the country, massacred and enslaved the population and expropriated the Jewish and Christian indigenous populations, as is related by contemporaneous sources. The land became dar al-Islam (land of Islam) through the jihadic and dhimmitude regulations. The Palestinian Arabs share with the Jordanians the same tribal culture, the same language, the same religion and the same history. There are no differences among them.
The Kurds, the Berbers, the Basques (Spain) and the Corsicans (France) have nationalist characteristics, but not the Palestinians. The Palestinian cause was created mainly in Europe, with the purpose to transfer onto the Palestinians the Jewish history in order to delegitimize Israel and to absolve Europe from the Holocaust by throwing onto Israel its own European history of Nazism, apartheid and colonialism.
Had the Arab countries accepted Israel from the beginning, like King Abdullah of Transjordan wanted in 1948, human tragedies could have been avoided. Nearly a million Jews were forced to flee from the Arab countries, suffering pogroms, rapes and the confiscation of all their belongings, lands and properties. No international organization came to their help or paid them anything. The war to destroy Israel, conducted by the Palestinians in order to restore dhimmitude, feeds a jihadic violence which is supported and funded by all the Arab and Muslim countries.

*also see the following thread for more info and a variety of opinions:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1996532-gaza-strip-pull-outs.html
(thread contains map of the former British Mandate of Palestine)
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
arnegrim said:
There are many who want the US to fail in Iraq... I would call that traitorous.
Some would contend that it's impossible for us to "fail" because we haven't decided what it is that we went there to do. Are we there to avenge the wrongs committed on 9/11? They didn't do it. Are we there to stop WMDs? They didn't have any. Are we there to "liberate" the Iraqis? From whom, themselves? Are we there for the oil? We're not getting any from them. So how will we know whether we've failed or succeeded when we're not sure what it is we're trying to do?
 
Upvote 0

minus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
437
22
47
Pennsylvania
✟8,182.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Jipsah said:
Some would contend that it's impossible for us to "fail" because we haven't decided what it is that we went there to do. Are we there to avenge the wrongs committed on 9/11? They didn't do it. Are we there to stop WMDs? They didn't have any. Are we there to "liberate" the Iraqis? From whom, themselves? Are we there for the oil? We're not getting any from them. So how will we know whether we've failed or succeeded when we're not sure what it is we're trying to do?

Just to add to your thoughts, I’m also curious who these Americans are that want us to fail?
I mean sure there are plenty of Americans who want us out of Iraq or never wanted us their to begin with (I include myself with the later) but this notion that there are Americans out there who want to see other Americans die just to prove that the war was wrong is just plain nonsense. Yeah I’m sure there’s some teenage anarchist kid out there bloging away about how much he(or she) wants us to fail, but that nut doesn’t even represent a fraction of one percent of the Americans who are opposed to the US occupation of Iraq.
 
Upvote 0

MethodMan

Legend
Site Supporter
Jun 24, 2004
14,268
313
62
NW Pennsylvania
✟61,785.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since this thread was about Cindy, lets look at people that want to give this mother the title "The Grieving Mother" and not "Political Activist", just look at Reuters article that quote Cindy

"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

Now, knowing that she was very active long before going to Crawford, does this not make her a liar?

More form the article and what I have major problems with in the media:

Sheehan and about 50 other peace activists arrived in the one- stoplight town Aug. 6, the day after she spoke at a Veterans for Peace convention in Dallas. She and a few others spent that night in chairs in ditches, without food or flashlights, off the main road leading to the president's ranch.

Sheehan's vigil attracted crowds of other anti-war demonstrators. Most stayed a few hours or days at the original roadside camp or at the second, larger site about a mile away on a private lot offered by a sympathetic landowner.


then:

The protest also sparked counter rallies by Bush supporters who accused Sheehan of using her son's death to push the liberal agenda of groups supporting her. Critics also said the anti-war demonstration was hurting U.S. troop morale while boosting the Iraqi insurgency.



Someone want to tell me the difference between a vigil and a protest?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tom

brownlee40
Feb 16, 2002
1,023
35
59
slc ut
Visit site
✟8,976.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
one love said:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm

Her protest now are slowly evolving into antics which border along Anit-Americanism and aren't too far from being seditous. Is this a further attempt to win support with the far-leftist of this country? She already has Moore on her side, who is next? Soros, Franken???

At first, I had no problem with what she and others were doing until yesterday when I heard the complaints from locals that they are blocking the streets and causing too much traffic, one in particular from a man toting a gun while placing signs to keep off his property.

Now, I can't feel anything but resentment and anger for her latest actions, and I can only hope that she doesn't pay her Fed income so that she may wind up where she belongs, Federal Prison.
war isnt an easy thing for any one to have to deal with but they are dfending and protecting our rights and freedom over there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaryS
Upvote 0

Relevance

Active Member
Aug 14, 2005
70
8
40
Earth
✟225.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
llondy said:
Ridiculous propoganda.

Nobody says if you dont like war you are anti-american. However, when you disgrace America by attacking it and everything it stands for then you have Anti-American views and should not be ashamed of being labeled as such.

For the love of God please quit with the "Bush lied" montra. It only shows the ignorance of the facts concerning the situation. You might not like the war, and you have every right to protest without having your tounge cut out (Unlike Iraqi's under Saddam), however, if Bush lied then so did everyone else because hey all said the same thing. Clinton, the UN, the inspectors, all at one time or another said he had weapons.

According to the reslolutions SADDAM had to prove that the weapons were not there, and he failed to do so. The Admin knew he would not comply, so Iraq was included in the democrazation of the Middle East.

I am not even commenting on the Israel/Palestinian portion of the post because it has no factual basis or historical meaning.

So Clinton lied too. Big deal. I never said I trusted him, or any politician for that matter. I don't.

No factual basis on the Israel/Palestine portion of my post? May I suggest you do some reading? Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi is a good start. Also, what exactly has no "factual basis" in my post? The media hardly covers the deaths of Palestinians as a result of Israeli attacks, which is why it seems that more Israeli civilians are killed by Palestinian terrorists. And attacks by Hamas have been blamed on the Palestinian Authority which is just plain stupid because the two groups are rivals. And don't take my total distrust for the Israeli state as anti-Jewish. I'm not against Jews. I'm against what the Israeli state is doing. I think that the common Palestinian people and Israeli people need to work together if they ever want to make real peace because the authorities on both sides are basically garbage.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
tom said:
war isnt an easy thing for any one to have to deal with but they are dfending and protecting our rights and freedom over there.
Who exactly was it over there who was threatening out rights and freedom? I must have missed that part.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EIChief

The Brain
Apr 12, 2004
1,218
77
51
Pittsburgh
Visit site
✟16,767.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
minus said:
Just to add to your thoughts, I’m also curious who these Americans are that want us to fail?
I mean sure there are plenty of Americans who want us out of Iraq or never wanted us their to begin with (I include myself with the later) but this notion that there are Americans out there who want to see other Americans die just to prove that the war was wrong is just plain nonsense. Yeah I’m sure there’s some teenage anarchist kid out there bloging away about how much he(or she) wants us to fail, but that nut doesn’t even represent a fraction of one percent of the Americans who are opposed to the US occupation of Iraq.

Pulling out of Iraq is failure, so by default those who want us to pull out want us to fail regardless if they realize it or not. The activists specifically want the administration to fail because they buy into the message that the war is based on lies and destortions, not to mention they simply hate the Bush Administration.

I try and push aside the rhetoric from both sides and get the facts. The facts in this case are pretty clear to me, and should be to everyone else as well. Cindy Sheehan is, and has been, an anti-war activist first, and a grieving mother second.

Casey Sheehan enlisted in 2000, and reinlisted in 2003 with full knowledge of his battalions deployment to Iraq. As a mechanic, Casey was not ordered into the fight that took his life either. He chose to do the honorable thing and went to help his friends that were being attacked. It sounds to me that Casey not only knew what he was doing, but believed in what he was doing

Cindy Sheehan's own family does not even support her. Her husband filed for divorce because of the stress, and the family has sent letters disavowing Cindy.

Evidence of her hate for Bush before Casey died, and that words are not her own but those of left wing extremist groups can be found in statements such as the one she made after the Presidential Election

"George, in 2000 when you stole that election and the Democrats gave up, I gave up, too. I had the most ironic thought of my life then: “Oh well, how much damage can he do in four years?”

Cindy states that the Downing Street Memo is what really sparked her protest, and this is probably true since shortly after this she planned her protest. But does she understand the truth about the memos? Or is she just listening to the anti-war extremists?

The truth is that the Memo is nothing new. It was published in an article in the London Journal right after it was released in 2002. Since Many were Pro-War in the U.S. then nobody cared, but it is a convenient thing to bring out now. Specifically, this paragragh is lifted most often, and by Cindy to explain her anger.

C [Richard Dearlove, Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
This is no more then the impressions of an aid to the British Parliament meetings, about what the President of the U.S. was thinking at the time. There are no quotes or direct statements to be found.

But even if this was true it really means very little. In 2002 the Bush Administration was obviously leaning towards war with Iraq as they planned their foreign policy in the wake of 911. They had been planning for the war on terror since two months after 911, which also means nothing because war must be planned, even if you end up not going. You can't decide to go to war on a Tuesday and deploy troops on Wednesday.

Colin Powell January 2002

"With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people. And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about."

Tom Daschle April 2002

"There is broad support for a regime change in Iraq. The question is how do we do it and when do we do it."

Covert operations were already in place before the Downing Streat memo, and supported by leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Joseph Biden June 2002

"If the covert action doesn't work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action, and it seems to me that we can't afford to miss."

The other message that Cindy often talks about, that was put into her head by groups like MoveOn.org in accordance with the Downing Street Memo is that Bush Lied about WMD's and therefore her son died for nothing.

However, the statement "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" Does not have to mean that Bush made it up, and in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. It simply means that evidence was being gathered based on what Intelligence already knew from the last 12 years. The Senate Intelligence Committee report said that there was no attempt based on their investigation to change intelligence to support war. One can say that some of the evidence turned out to be shaky, but that is not the fault of the Bush Administration, nor does it make the war something based on lies.

So Cindy did not like Bush or the war from the start, yet GWB makes a good enough impression on Cindy for her to make approving comments such as these after their first meeting from the Vacaville Reporter.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together"

This does not sound like things I would tell reporters after the President acted like he id not care, and actually seemed jovial when talking with her, refusing to see pictures of Casey and referring to him impersonally, which is what Cindy claims now. Would the Cindy Sheehan that we know now leave her first meeting with Bush and say those nice things about him if he was not nice to her? I think not.

Finally, a comment I read in one of Cindy's rants really struck me.

"I will never be able to look at an American flag without thinking of the uniform my son wore proudly that displayed that same symbol and the evil ones who desecrated and defiled the stars and stripes by lying us into the invasion of Iraq"

Cindy's son died for the freedom that the Flag represents, and now Cindy can't look at the flag because she is convinced that George Bush lied in order to kill US soldiers and thousands of innocent people in his Imperialistic quest for power.

How unfortunate for Cindy that she feels this way, it must be awful to be her and have to wake up every morning hating the country she lives in. But this is what the organizations like Code Pink and MoveOn do to people like Cindy Sheehan. Does anyone think that she came up with her rhetoric on her own based on the facts?

Maybe Cindy should take the blinders off and read some of the Quotes that President Bush really did say, and then determine for herself whether or not he lied.

President George W. Bush

"Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

"With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

"History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight."

"Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time."

"And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers — to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong."
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

"Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future."

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman."

All lies? I don't think so. It is for all these reasons that I do not support Cindy's protests, even though I support her right to protest.

I hope one day that Cindy can find some peace
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.