MichaelFJF
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering if she got permission from all those families to use those names.NothingButTheBlood said:Didn't she do that when she put up crosses with all the dead's names on them?
Upvote
0
I'm wondering if she got permission from all those families to use those names.NothingButTheBlood said:Didn't she do that when she put up crosses with all the dead's names on them?
MichaelFJF said:I'm wondering if she got permission from all those families to use those names.
Did she? When the New York Daily News listed the names of those killed on 11 September 2001 on its website, was it claiming to be the elected representative of the surviving families?NothingButTheBlood said:Didn't she do that when she put up crosses with all the dead's names on them?
MidnightBlue said:Did she? When the New York Daily News listed the names of those killed on 11 September 2001 on its website, was it claiming to be the elected representative of the surviving families?
The names of those killed are public information. Cindy Sheehan used that information to make a point. I doubt there was anyone simple enough to suppose that all those dead soldiers and their families agreed with her point.
Why do you think that?NothingButTheBlood said:I think that has been exactly what she has been trying to portray.And so has the media.
MichaelFJF said:It's hadly an attack, but then flashy misleading headlines are more fun aren't they? I know several military families and she represents none of them. And let's don't quote anything from the article that might makes sense either:
Let's just quote what we want. When the anti-war, anti-troop, pro-terrorist groups misrepresent statements, they only strengthen the resolve of those who favor winning the war on terror.
What a ridiculous comparison - and if you can't see the difference, no amount of arguing will convince you.Un freaking believable. No wonder the world thinks the US is full of morons.MidnightBlue said:Did she? When the New York Daily News listed the names of those killed on 11 September 2001 on its website, was it claiming to be the elected representative of the surviving families?
The names of those killed are public information. Cindy Sheehan used that information to make a point. I doubt there was anyone simple enough to suppose that all those dead soldiers and their families agreed with her point.
Gunny said:It would be very interesting to see the results of those that voluntarily choose to enlist in the Armed Forces.
freealaska said:It would be interesting but I think irrelevant to the overall picture of Americans' opposition to the war which is a majority now. Afterall you wouldn't ask a suicidal person their opinion on the morality of suicide. At the very least you wouldn't take their opinion as representative of how everyone else should think and make policy decisions based on it. I personally feel you should be suspicious of the motives of people who have essentially volunteered for death moreso than the motives of their grieving relatives.
You may justify it any way you like. The facts are:MoodyBlue said:Just to remind folks, just because a group (or individual) is anti-war, it doesn't automatically make them anti-troop and/or pro-terrorist. Many people whole-heartedly support the war on terror, but disagree on whether invading Iraq was the right way to do that.
3girls2dogs said:Suspicious of their motives? This I have to hear. Please, inform me as to what my husband's motive is.
MichaelFJF said:You may justify it any way you like. The facts are:
1.To the terrorists, the anti-war crowd gives them hope and strength. Perception is reality.
2. To the troops, the anti-war crowd is against them and their efforts. Perception is reality.
freealaska said:I could only speculate given that I don't know your husband personally. However I postulate it has something to do with the following list of motives (or a combination of two or more).
1. Needing an outlet for his generally reckless/violent tendancies.
2. A desire to demonstrate his "Machismo".
3. An over-inflated sense of blind patriotism.
4. An inability to admit the Iraq "war" was a mistake and should never have happened.
5. Being duped into thinking the Iraq "war" was necessary to insure our continued freedom/liberty.
6. ACTUALLY believing that the Iraq "war" was necessary to insure our continued freedom/liberty.
7. OR (perhaps saddest of all) he really is a good person trying to do what's best for our country in spite of the current leadership who should be impeached.
SackLunch said:It's typical Bush/Rovian style marginalization of the enemy. Notice, they did the same exact thing to the terrorists: "The majority of Muslims are peace loving; it is only a handful of terrorists who have hijacked the religion of Islam. These terrorists do not speak for Islam."
When you marginalize a group or individual, you cause the larger group to question the validity, credibility, and motives of that group or individual who is causing the "problem." It's a typical Bush/Rove retaliatory tactic.
MichaelFJF said:You may justify it any way you like. The facts are:
1.To the terrorists, the anti-war crowd gives them hope and strength. Perception is reality.
2. To the troops, the anti-war crowd is against them and their efforts. Perception is reality.
freealaska said:1. Needing an outlet for his generally reckless/violent tendancies.
2. A desire to demonstrate his "Machismo".
3. An over-inflated sense of blind patriotism.
4. An inability to admit the Iraq "war" was a mistake and should never have happened.
5. Being duped into thinking the Iraq "war" was necessary to insure our continued freedom/liberty.
6. ACTUALLY believing that the Iraq "war" was necessary to insure our continued freedom/liberty.
7. OR (perhaps saddest of all) he really is a good person trying to do what's best for our country in spite of the current leadership who should be impeached.
Sometimes the best weapon against the left...is the left.Rik said:Here's a perfect example of how the left "supports the troops". Thanks for showing us your true feeling about the military.
What was said that was so bad, I wonder? And noones calling for an end to Cindy Sheehan's speech. An end to the daily parading of it on the news would be welcome...or barring that, a closer look at the woman who is claimed to be 'just a grieving other who lost her son in Iraq'. A closer look reveals some mighty curious ties & statements by Sheehan herself. But who wants to be the one to 'attack' a poor grieving mother who lost her son in Iraq, right? Sorry, but there are many of us who think using a personal tradgedy as leverage to make sure that one's argument is not criticized is pretty sketchy, ethics-wise.PastorJason said:Like it or not, Cindy Sheehan is well within her rights as a US citizen to protest any war or military action. I think it speaks volumes that she hasn't been silenced yet.
Is anyone really surprised Bush said what he did in Idaho? He's a politician, after all..
Agreed. But the church in America is more distracted by it's affluence than it's nation. Personally, I gave up a $70,000 year job to do missions for free. Some could call that evidence of devotion.PastorJason said:If only the people in pews across America had that sort of devotion to the God they say they pray to, rather than practicing the civil religion of the Church of America (regardless of which president is in office, liberal, conservative, or moderate.).
We pray for the same thing, then. I'm sure you also pray for all people to be able to chart their own destiny, free from leaders who tyrannize and opress their people. Surely, the Lord frowns on such things. Finally, here's a difference between glorifying war, and honoring the sacrifices and efforts made by those who volunteered to fight in that war.PastorJason said:I pray for an end to this conflict, that all our brothers and sisters can come home, regardless of what spin doctors, the left, the right, or the middle have to say about it.
To glorify this or any other war stands in direct opposition to what our Lord lived - and died - for. I've not met a veteran yet who glorifies war. They understand it better than we do, and mourn their lost comrades and innocence. Whether you agree or disagree with our national and foreign policy, I don't care. What I care about is forgetting the faces of those who live and die at someone else's command.
I am thoroughly ashamed.