Are these the same protestors who believe 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other?
Like when?
Is there some sort of tie that I don’t know about? Or am I getting wooshed?
I said that because everytime somebody brings up a case for war, 9/11 is mentioned. Then in response, an anti-war type person will say, in a whiny voice “9/11 and Al-Queda have nothing to do with Bush and his war against Iraq”.
So what was the reason these protestors ruined a memorial for 9/11? Is 9/11 a sign to protestors that we should go to war and that there’re against it?
Here, yme, I’ll say it for you. Real slow like, using the smallest words I can, without whining:
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That makes the act of desecration refered to in the OP even stupider.
9/11 is a sign we should go to war AGAINST AL QAEDA! Why can’t you get that through your head? It’s like the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Argentina.
There are morons on both sides of the argument.
Ahhh, I understand. The fucknuts misinterprit patriotism with militarism. I agree that the protesters were morons. I guess our paths diverge on the topic of Al-Queda and Bush’s war. UBL dislikes Saddam and his secular government, and any attempts to link Al-Queda and Saddam have been tenuous at best, and utter falsehoods in some cases.
But I agree. Those protesters seem to be inbred fucknuts.
Who said it was? Notice the quotation marks and look a couple of posts above mine. I wasn’t the one directly comparing it to a war, I was rejecting that comparison.
No.
I agree completely.
Yes but it’s not him.
That was his exact point, you’ve been whoosed.
The police are in a real “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation here.
On the one hand, if they rushed in and arrested the mofo’s, it would have started a load of crap with the other sniveling assholes in attendence. Then there would be a whole load of pit threads about the asshole cops who were just trying to keep the man down.
On the other hand, they stand and watch, and still get bitched at. (Of course, it did show what a bunch of jerks some of these people are)
I can see that you fit quite well on atleast one side. The side that cannot for the life of them answer direct questions.
The protestors that are against war say that 9/11 is in no way related to Iraq. Then, please, why did they have the need to destroy anything that remotely resembles 9/11? Especially a memorial?
My question is basically this. This is hard for me to word, but do protestors, for the most part feel that people who display affection for 9/11 are for war? Put it like this, if I walk into a crowd of people, whether it’s a mall or a picket line, am I liable to catch some shit because let’s say I’m wearing shirt that says “Remember 9/11”? I could be a person who wishes harm on no one and a protestor could assume that I’m pro killing Iraqis when I could mean quite the opposite. That’s my point.
I’d be curious to know what actually happened, last Saturday.
The “facts” of the story do not make sense.
First is the police statement. I can bring my falg down to the steps of the Capitol and desecrate it in any number of ways. However, the moment I touch your flag, that is theft and/or vandalism.
Second is the claim that they were “anti-war” protestors. The only evidence presented (in the news release) is that they stuck Dylan’s old With God on Our Side over a patriotic banner or placard? With all the destruction they did (under the benevolent watch of the police), the most they could do to protest the war is to hang up the lyrics (I suspect on 8 1/2 X 11 paper) to a song that is probably unknown to the overwhelming majority of people below the age of 40 or over 70 (and which really did not get a lot of play even during the Vietnam war)? That’s it?
I am not going to assume any odd conspiracies, here, but this story has huge holes in its presentation.
(I do hope that the owner of the fence does bring charges against the trio of vandals and that they get the California maximum sentence along with having to provide restitution for the damage.)
If demonizing anti-war protesters was your profession, this would be one hell of a story! “Anti-War protesters are evil and they’re vandals!”
But, our Government has NEVER EVER EVER EVER tried to discredit their enemies with stuff like this before. Nope… cointelwhat?? (not saying that they’re doing it now, you just have to keep a suspicious eye out and not hold blind faith)
We love Dubya!
although, if I had to do something for PR and I was working for the cause of War. I’m sure that ‘guilt by association’ works very well. Hehehe… 
I’m just guessing here, Tom, so take it for that, please. My guess is that once the flag and other items are left at the impromptu shrine, their legal status is “abandoned property.” Maybe the police can’t do anything about what’s happened to that property but are waiting for the owner of the fence to request prosecution for trespass.
As I said, I’m just guessing, though.
And they’d be right. Well, let me put it this way - what evidence is there that Hussein supports Al Queda in any way, shape or form? There’s plenty of reasons to oppose Saddam Hussein. But there’s no need to confuse matters. The US government has at the very least not been careful enough to distinguish between the two, and indeed 9/11 has been used as an argument for war against Iraq without proper evidence.
Because any group of significant size will have a couple of complete fucking idiots in it. As much as I oppose a war with Iraq at this stage, what these protestors did to that memorial was vile. But it doesn’t mean that ALL war opposers would be so disrespectful - or stupid.
I can’t speak for all protestors, but I’d say that would be a horribly stupid conclusion should a person arrive at it.
I’m not saying this scenario is impossible. But you’d be dealing with a complete idiot if they equated grief over 9/11 with the willingness to go to war.
Then again, think of it this way: the way the American government and media approach the topics of Iraq and Al Queda, it could be argued that since no clear distinction is being made, an ordinary citizen will be more likely to equate the two, and use 9/11 as an argument for war. One could say that that person would be poorly informed for doing so, but I only have to watch CNN for 10 minutes to see where this notion could come from. Seriously.
If you think the purpose of an Iraq war is to punish Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime for past misdeeds, then 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. OTOH if you think the purpose of regime change in Iraq is to protect the United States and its allies from Saddam Hussein in the future, then 9/11 was a wake-up call. It’s a reminder that we all live on the same planet, a world that is getting smaller every day. A regime on the other side of the planet can murder thousands of Americans or Europeans. We cannot make the mistake of overlooking the actions and intentions of the dreadful government in Iraq. That is, we cannot afford to repeat the mistake we made with Osama bin Laden.
Furthermore there is a real possibility that Iraq might provide WMDs to al Qaeda in the future, regardless of what happened in the past. Colin Powell reported that there is some degree of relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. Certain al Qaeda elements used Iraq as a staging ground.
The risk that Saddam might develop nuclear weapons and make some of them available to al Qaeda is utterly horrifying. Even though it’s far from certain that this would ever occur, the damage could be so enormous that it must be faced and dealt with. We cannot behave like ostriches and just stick our heads in the sand.
I think there’s tons of purposes to a potential Iraq war. Oil, the protection of Israel, finishing a 12 year old job, making the people in the homeland believe the government’s really fighting terrorism. And, hopefully, a succesful regime change for another regime change gone horribly wrong.
Huh? That is assuming a hell of a lot, december. I’ll give you one point for “protecting US allies from Saddam in the future”, because that’s certainly true for Israel. But it has fuck-all to do with 9/11.
Define “Europe”. With his current arsenal, Saddam can possibly reach Istanbul, but that’s about it. I’m not suggesting he isn’t a dangerous dictator, but let’s get real here: Saddam isn’t dropping bombs on London or Chicago anytime soon.
With the distinct difference that the current leadership of Iraq was actually instated by the CIA. Of course, he seemed like a decent ally at the time… Later on, a friend in the region was desperately needed, what with neighbouring Iran becoming all Muslim and anti-American and stuff.
Well, you’re right in that the US also sponsored OBL to fight the Evil Commies in Afghanistan, but the difference is that they basically made Saddam a head of state, whereas they only treated OBL as a mercenary.
But the main feeling I get is that of cynicism and distrust: how many regime changes has the US (mainly by means of the CIA) already fucked up in the middle east, and who’s to say they’ll get it right at this try?
Well, if we just let him be, then perhaps - although I don’t think OBL is all that interested in doing business with an infidel like SH. After all, why would a Muslim Fundie want to financially benefit a secular leader who is at odds with many of his providing nations? Moreover, does the name Hans Blix ring a bell? Whether the US attacks Iraq or not, there is no way in hell that Saddam will come out of this WITH WMD’s at his disposal. Period.
My ass reported that the sky is green. But it didn’t prove it, so I chose to go by facts.
Certain Al Queda elements lived in Hamburg, London, and various cities in the United States. Terrorists are by definition elusive, and cannot be tied to a single government as easily as the US wants them to.
Look, december, if the US has irrefutable evidence that Saddam and OBL are best buddies, and that Saddam is supplying OBL with WMD’s (or is intending to), then why haven’t we seen this evidence? SH is a threat to his region. OBL is a filthy terrorist who needs to be tracked down. The two problems are unrelated until proven otherwise, and for the US government to present SH as part of the OBL problem is a disingenious way to sell an unpopular war unless they come up with proof.
Yes it is. It is also unlikely.
We need to deal with real threats, and the real consequences that might result. I’m not saying SH should be left alone. I’m saying dealing with him is a separate matter from dealing with OBL.
And if I look at what threatens America most, the focus should be on OBL, not SH.
I find the headline (in the linked story) to be ambiguous and potentially misleading. How exactly do we know that “antiwar protestors” were involved? Was there any sort of march or organized protest (not mentioned in the story)? Were the vandals involved members of any group opposing war? Or just a few moronic individuals who decided to take out their frustrations on a patriotic display?
They sound similar to the “religious” yahoos who deface Darwin fish logos (hey, tu quoque is fun!).
It’s offensive behavior, yes, and pretty damn stupid from the viewpoint of strategy as well as righteousness. People who are antiwar should be conspicuously displaying the flag, expressing support for the welfare of our troops and emphasizing their patriotism at every turn, not providing fuel for Limbaughesque rantings.
Bravo, Coldfire for those two brilliant posts.
Coldfire, I think the connection is this:
Facts:
-Saddam has paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
-Saddam has amassed a large arsenal of chemical & biological weapons in clear violation of the agreement that ended the Gulf War.
-Palestinian suicide bombers and those sympathetic to them are typically anti-U.S. for our support of Israel.
therefore:
-What’s to keep Saddam from supplying the suicide bombers with these chemical & biological weapons?
-What’s to keep these suicide bombers from attacking the US for our support of Israel?
What does this have to do with 9/11? 9/11 forced the gov’t to focus on terrorism and the current administration thinks that since Saddam has funded terrorists in the past it’s not that big a leap to think that he would supply them with weaponry and that they might attack the US. It’s not a direct connection, but I don’t think itt’s farfetched either.
I realize this has fuckall to do with the jagoffs in the OP.
I was wondering about this, too. It appears from the article that the memorial was erected on a fence along a public road. The owner of the fence appears to claim it as his “private property,” which is no doubt correct, but i wonder if hanging things like signs and flags on the outside of such a fence also makes them private proprty? Because, as monty says, some might say that such items left by the road in this manner constitute abandoned property. This does not excuse the ridiculous behavior of the vandals; i’m simply trying to understand the police officers’ reasons for not intervening.
And i also tend to agree with tom that there’s very little info on the “protest” in the article cited by the OP. The caption underneath the picture describes the perpetrators as “vandals,” and i think that’s a more appropriate designation.