Comments on: Tell Me Again How This is “Supporting the Troops”?

By: dianne

dianne — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:41:58 +0000

Give me a break…if that isn’t easily refutable, then nothing is. I take back my comment.

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:00:02 +0000

Preston, I have to acknowledge your willingness to debate that which is not easily refutable.

I’m not sure what you mean by “not easily refutable”. At the rally that Robbie linked to you have masked anarchists burning US flags; you have average joes calling for US troops to come home; and you seem to have some dumbasses who commemorate dead Muslims by placing crosses in a field… I think it’s obvious looking at the pictures that they have a number of differences in their respective ideologies.

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:38:50 +0000

Well they strongly support the Democrat party with their money and votes. Face it Preston, youâ€™re known by the company you keep.

You don’t know much about anarchists, I’m going to guess…

By: JC Shakespeare

JC Shakespeare — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:23:42 +0000

Isn’t anyone going to question the idea that the military should be able to shoot someone who throws a rock at a car? People assaulting soldiers are breaking the law. They should be arrested, prosecuted, tried, and punished if they are guilty. I remember a while back Robbie making a similar argument when US soldiers were arrested for raping and murdering Iraqi citizens. If US soldiers can kill people who throw rocks at their cars, why couldn’t Iraqi citizens defend themselves from raping and pillaging US troops? In our country, we are guaranteed due process of law. That seems to be a part of our democracy that we are unwilling to extend to people who don’t see things our way.

The point that’s being lost here is that violence and unlawful behavior are reprehensible no matter who commits them. I’m so tired of this “your side is worse than my side” arguing. It’s pointless and incomplete. What does it solve?

By: Jim Howard

Jim Howard — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:07:56 +0000

“Uh, in what way do hooded and masked anarchists haven anything to do with the Democratic Party?”

Well they strongly support the Democrat party with their money and votes. Face it Preston, you’re known by the company you keep.

By: dianne

dianne — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:51:46 +0000

Preston, I have to acknowledge your willingness to debate that which is not easily refutable. Thank you for that. I try to do the same on left leaning sites, even if it’s not palatable.

With respect to the argument at hand, I’m not sure which march you are referring to. If it was an anti-war rally, so, that is fine. If it was an anti-soldier war rally, that is not fine.

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:27:28 +0000

Damn, am I gonna have to dredge up 40 years ago? Havenâ€™t we learned anything?

I think that’s exactly what thousands of people marching in the streets in early 2003 were saying.

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:33:03 +0000

I wouldnâ€™t call Students for Democratic Society a â€œhooded and masked anarchistâ€ group.

Just anarchists, I suppose.

By: dianne

dianne — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:02:25 +0000

I must say the SDS didn’t ring a bell with me till you just brought it up, Robbie, but then bingo, I remembered that group from Viet Nam. I checked on line and understand they disbanded, but now must be back in action if they are one in the same.

If so, all one needs to recall is the hate that they spewed towards our returning soldiers in Viet Nam (or if too young check it out on line). We cannot go there again. Whatever one may think of the current war, it is not the fault of our soldiers.

Damn, am I gonna have to dredge up 40 years ago? Haven’t we learned anything?

By: Robbie

Robbie — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:13:51 +0000

I wouldn't call Students for Democratic Society a "hooded and masked anarchist" group. They conduct their vandalism and assaults without the cover of masks and hoods, but with the full recognition from their university.