Utah man harassed for honoring war dead

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/22/9119/31912

++++++++++++++==

You know because its Anti-American to remind people that Americans are dying for lies...

within that page was a link to a very interesting blog http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

quite a good read

Well gee guerilla,

First off, I honestly hope you aren't trying to pass off the dailykos as some kind of middle of the road, mainstream news and info website, because it isn't, it's a far left website. If I had to come up with an equivalent website, it would have to be protestwarrrior.com, brainterminal.com or littlegreenfootballs.something. I also hope, that in the future, when I site something from rushlimbaugh.com, worldnetdaily, the new yorkpost, Sean Hannity and townhall.com that you aren't going to go and call me down for siting THEM, as you have no problem getting the far left in on these arguments. Just thought to put you on notice.

NOW, as far as this "war memorial" is concerned. Is this war memorial a tribute to those who have sacrificed dearly to preserve this country, or is it some kind of monument to those who died because Bush lied? And just who is it that is harassing this guy? Is it the Left for memorializing the dead, or is the right because this guy is using our dead soldiers as leverage to call the war in Iraq evil, unjust or whatever? This gem of a newspiece doesn't say, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this guy's little memorial is a springboard for protesting the war in Iraq and if that's the case, then I can't blame those who harrass him. Just my thoughts.


Now as far as Drew's "bring 'em on" bit he linked to, I found it interesting that when I clicked one of the hyperlinks it lead to an al jazeera web page. Al jazeera is the mouthpiece of the mid east terrorists. It's interesting because Al Jazeera would just love for the U.S. to fail in Iraq and the Left would just love to have us fail in Iraq. I did state, at one time, that the Lefties would ally themselves with mid east terrorists if it brought down Bush, and I got some flak over it. But look what gets sited. Am I wrong?

Al jazeera is the mouthpiece of the mid east terrorists.
Evidence?
It's interesting because Al Jazeera would just love for the U.S. to fail in Iraq and the Left would just love to have us fail in Iraq.
Your bark seems louder than your bite. Where do you pull these 'opinions' of Al Jazeera and the left from? I guess the "You are either with us or with the terrorists" speech is infinitely repeating in your mind

It's interesting because Al Jazeera would just love for the U.S. to fail in Iraq and the Left would just love to have us fail in Iraq. Bwahahahaa. Funny your too indoctrinated to see that the US has already lost.

Are you actually argueing that the motivation behind honoring those that have fought and died for this country are of issue? So a war memorial built by a republican is good, built by a liberal its bad. Gotta love those idiotic double standards at the expense of our troops.

Why do facts hate America so much?

guerilla, I hope you dont think we believe you really care about our war dead. you cant go from "fuck the troops" to honoring them, unless of course you are a complelty incoherent jackass who just blurts out whatever pops into his head with no regard to his previous position on issues, which I suspect you are.

Well gee cursed,

Al Jazeeri just did a documentary on how easy it is to enter the United States through Mexico. Do you really think Muslims are going to enter the U.S. through Mexico to pick tomatoes? Geez! I'll post the link to a website called jihad watch and you can root around and find the story.


Now, as for you guerilla,

I think intentions are everything. A memorial that uses those that have died in Iraq as a springboard to advance the idea of "Bush lied people died" is not something people are going to take kindly to. Plain and simple.


Jihad Watch (http://jihadwatch.org/)

Kinda like when bush used 9/11 photos to get re-appointed or when he used 9/11 photos to scare the hell out of everyone, or when rumsfeld...hell, I don't have enough time to list all the miss-uses of fear and honor that is being thrown around by this so called administration.

Bush "used" 9/11 photos to get "reappointed?" I'm guessing it's a bit too hard for you to wrap your head around the idea that the majority of Americans would rather have had Bush in the Whitehouse than Kerry.

But that's beside the point. If you wish to say Bush used the 9/11 photos to get himself re-elected, it was to show that the U.S. has enemies out there who can and will strike the U.S. Karl Rove was right in his recent statement that the Dems would've issued idictments and tried to offer therapy to the Jihadists.

Darth, I am NOT with you nor have I ever been.

Fuck you, fuck anything you ever stood for, and fuck anything that might ever stand for you. My children I will make sure will fight your kind into the 6 foot hole where yall belong. For the american military in the middle east are the real terrorists.

Originally posted by Cursed@Birth
Darth, I am NOT with you nor have I ever been.

Fuck you, fuck anything you ever stood for, and fuck anything that might ever stand for you. My children I will make sure will fight your kind into the 6 foot hole where yall belong. For the american military in the middle east are the real terrorists.
Hell, I'm against the war in Iraq, and very liberal. But this post was just retarded...

Catch a fucking clue, Cursed@Birth. The American military did not choose to go to Iraq, George Bush did. You can't blame the military for the mistakes of a President. And your post proves no point, but that you have a lot of anger that is utterly un-productive in the fight against this horrible Administration we have running our country.

Originally posted by Cursed@Birth
Darth, I am NOT with you nor have I ever been.

Fuck you, fuck anything you ever stood for, and fuck anything that might ever stand for you. My children I will make sure will fight your kind into the 6 foot hole where yall belong. For the american military in the middle east are the real terrorists.
---------------------------------------------------------

Gee......The medication is not working.

Wow, someone is just alittle upset,... hey? Play nice or daddy will take the keyboard away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal


. Karl Rove was right in his recent statement that the Dems would've issued idictments and tried to offer therapy to the Jihadists. but, now the republicans are trying to negotiate with the very terrorist they said that they wouldnt negotiate with. karl rove is a hypocrite closet homosexual, who hates gays.....funny. yeah, he's the guy I WANT TO LISTEN TO BECAUSE HE HAS soooo much integrity :rolleyes: saying things about the dems, doesnt make it true, but THAT'S how they won the election. they banked on people being "stepford" like, and they were right. if people REALLY listened to them, they showed their hypocrisy with every other statement !

korg, there are two types of terrosits in iraq. one group is foreign al qeada, the other are indignous iraqis. I am sure there is some overlap, but mainly the foreign fighters are seperate from the iraqis. We are not sitting down at the table with zarqawi, we are negotiating with the sunnis who have shown some interest in gettng involved in the political proccess. I thought you wanted us to stop killing iraqis? now you want us to shoot them?

Well done OD, I am proud of your response to the morons idiotic rant.

I am worried that people like that will someday actually have to make rational decisions and lead a productive life.

As for the story I feel that the city decided that it didnt want any controversy so decided to find some little hidden ordinance to push. Either way the sign can be seen as a tribute and a way to remember those who lost their lives in combat.
Another point not covered does the sign show pics of the troops alive or does he display pics of their bodies, if it is the latter it is bad taste and maybe he should remove it.

Korg,

I've read a bit about this "negotiate with terrorists" and listened to some about it on the radio, plus a newspaper article on why the U.S. uses different tactics in different situations with various terrorist groups.

The main thing is that the U.S. is trying to peel terrorists of various stripes away from each other and away from the general population (not that terrorists have popular support in Iraq or Afghanistan.) For instance, with one of the Iraq battles against terrorists in Iraq (I forgot the city) the U.S. merely let the terrorists have one section of the city, in the other section, the U.S. simply started rebuilding the infrastructure. So while those in the terrorist held section of the city were standing around in the mosque and screaming "death to america" the section of the city were getting food, water and electricity. The people in the terrorist held section of the city soon wondered why they were "fighting" the way they were and eventually gave it up. Leaving the terrorists without support. You'll have to go to the New York Post website, sign up and read the "Post Opinion" section for all the details. But it does make sense.

With this "negotiate with terrorists" bit, the U.S. is trying to get the less extreme set of people to give up using terror and enter the political system being set up in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have to use every single weapon at hand to defeat the terror attacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about peace. Even if we have to deal with less than savory characters.


Cursed, if you think I'm impressed, hurt, shocked, saddened, stunned, surprised or anything else by your rant, you are sadly mistaken. The only thing you've proved is that you can't handle someone rebutting your ideas.


Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

I've read a bit about this "negotiate with terrorists" and listened to some about it on the radio, plus a newspaper article on why the U.S. uses different tactics in different situations with various terrorist groups.

The main thing is that the U.S. is trying to peel terrorists of various stripes away from each other and away from the general population (not that terrorists have popular support in Iraq or Afghanistan.) For instance, with one of the Iraq battles against terrorists in Iraq (I forgot the city) the U.S. merely let the terrorists have one section of the city, in the other section, the U.S. simply started rebuilding the infrastructure. So while those in the terrorist held section of the city were standing around in the mosque and screaming "death to america" the section of the city were getting food, water and electricity. The people in the terrorist held section of the city soon wondered why they were "fighting" the way they were and eventually gave it up. Leaving the terrorists without support. You'll have to go to the New York Post website, sign up and read the "Post Opinion" section for all the details. But it does make sense.

With this "negotiate with terrorists" bit, the U.S. is trying to get the less extreme set of people to give up using terror and enter the political system being set up in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have to use every single weapon at hand to defeat the terror attacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about peace. Even if we have to deal with less than savory characters.


Cursed, if you think I'm impressed, hurt, shocked, saddened, stunned, surprised or anything else by your rant, you are sadly mistaken. The only thing you've proved is that you can't handle someone rebutting your ideas.


Dammit. darth, if that's the case, i agree with them doing it. i really didnt have a problem with them doing whatever they have to , to bring an end to this. but i would think that this is a slap in the face, not to the government because i didnt know their stance on talking with them, but to the people on this forum whom i recall saying that our govt would NEVER sit down with these people. but i hope it works for the cause.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------------------------------

Gee......The medication is not working. lmao

Korg,

I've detailed before how the U.S. has allied with less than savory characters in order to look after its own national interests. It's not something to be proud of, BUT sometimes you do have to ally with people you'd rather not ally with to get a job done.

I can also point two other things. First, and I've said this before, the grandest scheme to do the greatest good will come to nothing if it doesn't work. Secondly, while the U.S., from time to time does ally with scumbags, when the time is ripe those scumbags can be dealt with on harsher terms.

People keep pointing out that the U.S. had allied with Saddam at one time. And I point out that while we did, it was to keep Iran and radical islam from spreading through the middle east (the Iran Iraq war, which is something that would've been catastrophic. But when our interests changed, the U.S. dealt with Saddam much more harshly. The same can be said when the U.S. sided with Radical Islam in Afghanistan to defeat something even worse, which was Soviet Communism spreading through Afghanistan.

Again, not something to be proud of, but necessary.

ok, well i understand, but i guess to the rest of the world, we look like the dashing groom who eventually started beating his wife. hypocrisy just looks bad coming from the country that set the standards. but i guess, behind it all, some things just have to be kind of dirty, because we're not dealing with "the world", we're dealing with people, human beings with flaws.

korg, there are two types of terrosits in iraq. one group is foreign al qeada, the other are indignous iraqis. Ahhh...now thats the racist/nationalist idiot we all know and despise...

Hey Trav you might wanna pull that flag outta your ass, the colors seem to be bleeding into your brain...

I think intentions are everything. A memorial that uses those that have died in Iraq as a springboard to advance the idea of "Bush lied people died" is not something people are going to take kindly to. Plain and simple. I'm sorry, do you or anybody else have the ability to read minds? Thought crimes are popular these days I guess...Unless is says something like that on the memorial (which nothing I have read idicates such) then no one could possible know the intentions. Also don't you think its important for peopel to realize the true cost of war or are you the type that likes to stick your fingers in your ears when you hear something that doesn't agree with you realistic facade? Besides that don't you think that our troops shouldn't be getting killed for lies? Isn't it anti-american to get them killed for reasons other than protecting the US?

Originally posted by korg
ok, well i understand, but i guess to the rest of the world, we look like the dashing groom who eventually started beating his wife. hypocrisy just looks bad coming from the country that set the standards. but i guess, behind it all, some things just have to be kind of dirty, because we're not dealing with "the world", we're dealing with people, human beings with flaws.
A very well taken point, Korg. Good post.

Cursed@Birth
Boy, you weren't kidding, were you?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I'm sorry, do you or anybody else have the ability to read minds? Thought crimes are popular these days I guess...Unless is says something like that on the memorial (which nothing I have read idicates such) then no one could possible know the intentions. Also don't you think its important for peopel to realize the true cost of war or are you the type that likes to stick your fingers in your ears when you hear something that doesn't agree with you realistic facade? Besides that don't you think that our troops shouldn't be getting killed for lies? Isn't it anti-american to get them killed for reasons other than protecting the US?
You completely failed to see his point. If you bothered pulling your head out of your ass for a nanosecond, maybe you'd realize that being a loathsome obfuscation of all that's good in the world is something worth trying to correct. Then again, why bother...you're on a roll, right?

Korg,

The rest of the world? Which part of the rest of the World? China, North Korea, the Sudan? They don't care about human rights. Europe? The ones involved in the Oil For Food Scandal? The very people who didn't care how Saddam treated his own people, so long as cheap oil kept flowing from Iraq. Former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar pointed out, accurately that what Europe was doing in appeasing Saddam was buying comfort at the expense of others. So long as the attrocities were happening far away, they weren't about to care what happened to the Iraqis. Then there's the U.N. Peope here on these boards complain about Bush, Cheney and Haliburton. YET, Kofi Anan presided over the biggest monetary scandal in history with the Oil for Food thing and it barely gets noticed. Which leads me to my next point.

There is a deliberate, ongoing HYPERSENSITIVITY to anything the U.S. does that can be percieved as bad. Abu Ghraib is a sparkling example. Yet what the "insurgents" do to those they capture in Iraq is much, much worse. The U.S. causes civilian casualties, front page news. The "insurgents" send a suicide bomber into a market or mosque and kill scores of civilians, ho hum.

I'll post a link to an Amir Taheri article. Its old, but very, very relevent to our struggle in Iraq. Please read the article. I hate to insert a link that nobody reads. Amir Taheri is a columnists you should get to know well, that man in brilliant. Dammit.


Amir Taheri (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5163)

Funny how you give more condemnation to the acts of a few twisted individuals than you give to a highly organized and taxpayer funded endevour suppossedly in your name.

BTW - good job at avoiding answering my post.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Boy, you weren't kidding, were you? really really rotflmao !!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

The rest of the world? Which part of the rest of the World? China, North Korea, the Sudan? They don't care about human rights. Europe? The ones involved in the Oil For Food Scandal? The very people who didn't care how Saddam treated his own people, so long as cheap oil kept flowing from Iraq. Former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar pointed out, accurately that what Europe was doing in appeasing Saddam was buying comfort at the expense of others. So long as the attrocities were happening far away, they weren't about to care what happened to the Iraqis. Then there's the U.N. Peope here on these boards complain about Bush, Cheney and Haliburton. YET, Kofi Anan presided over the biggest monetary scandal in history with the Oil for Food thing and it barely gets noticed. Which leads me to my next point.

There is a deliberate, ongoing HYPERSENSITIVITY to anything the U.S. does that can be percieved as bad. Abu Ghraib is a sparkling example. Yet what the "insurgents" do to those they capture in Iraq is much, much worse. The U.S. causes civilian casualties, front page news. The "insurgents" send a suicide bomber into a market or mosque and kill scores of civilians, ho hum.

I'll post a link to an Amir Taheri article. Its old, but very, very relevent to our struggle in Iraq. Please read the article. I hate to insert a link that nobody reads. Amir Taheri is a columnists you should get to know well, that man in brilliant. Dammit.


Amir Taheri (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5163) darth, regardless of how it may be unfair for other countries with inhumane treatment of others, to scrutinize everything we do, we are the standard setters of a truly free world. its kind of like jesus saying fuck it, i'll sleep with the whore, everyone else has, so they are in no position to judge me, and then want to preach sin free salvation. no one ever said that being an example of good, was easy. when i was younger, a lot of my friends were dealing drugs and making a lot of money. in the mean time, i was broke as hell going to school, and trying to tell the kids that my way was the better way. it wasnt easy because people didnt see my success like they saw the drug dealers success. but after some years, my way has proven to be right. but it wasnt easy to prove when i didnt have.