It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: The Face of American Grief

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I've read most of the posts on here but haven't seen anyone refer to her stance on the war prior to the lose of her son.

So, may I ask what her stance was?




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Actually right now if you type her name in anywheres you get tons of anti- Cindy Sheehan websites, why I don't know since I have been to many in the past supporting her. So right now I can't find anything on her. I did look her up on my favorite news website and found this, I'm posting it since I doubt many heard about these 1500 candle light vigils on their network news.

www.democracynow.org.../08/18/1331246&mode=thread&tid=25

More Than 1,500 Antiwar Vigils Held Across the US



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
I've read most of the posts on here but haven't seen anyone refer to her stance on the war prior to the lose of her son.

So, may I ask what her stance was?


She was pro war on the initial evidence.
Pro war until the new documents came out showing the C.I.A. etc were in fact lying to her.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   
As much as i'm against the war on Iraq, I find it hard to feel anything for someone who changes there view due to personal impact.

If she agreed with the war initially, and knew full well that there would always be a chance her son could be maimed or killed, why would it change her stance.

I can only assume that she cares only for herself and not those that have died as a consequence of what she initially supported.

Do you think she would still be supporting the war if her son were still alive?

I do.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Koka that a person can change their view because of experience, gain or loss shouldn't be surprising we all do it all the time....its called growing. In doing so we expand and become more fully human. I presonally perfer a person who develops and has the courage to change their views, to fail to do so (like a certian president) exposes a rigidity that is ultimately very fragile indeed.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I'm all for people growing, I just wonder why some people stick with an opinion until it affects them directly, then it's all change.

How many others are pro-war and have relatives fighting in Iraq?

And how many will change their stance cos' they suddenly realise that the attrocities are now affecting them directly.

You don't have to put your hand in a fire to find out it's hot.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
this is true but for many people, unless it directly affects them it is somebody elses problem. There are those of us who paid a tad bit more attention during the lead up to the war and saw all the war drumming and lies and contridictions and we spoke up hey this is wrong and we got throughly trashed for it by the right wing. For every person who shouted obseanities or threw eggs at those of us who stood in protest in the days leading up to the war, there were dozens of others who privately thanked us for doing it. I know, I experinced those thank you's presonally. Then there are those people who need a personal shock to turn them around. Personally I welcome them all with open arms...yes I wish they were there from the beginning but better late than never. Of course as more people wake up to the depradations of this criminal administration we will see more and more actions like Ms. Sheehan's and more power to em is what I say. I know there are those here who don't like my (and other's views of this administration) but I am speaking my mind as I have the right to...it is the insistance of the hard right to shout down and abuse any who disagree with them that I find most the odious and ultimately anti-American about them. It is that behaviour itself that tells me that they are in the wrong more than anything else...the truth doesn't need to defend itself with such tactics.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
.
The entire net result of this effort in Iraq has been funnelling Billions in blood money to Haliburton and Bechtel and to assist the Anti-American terrorist cause around the world.

Not only has 9 billion dollars been embezzled by unknown Iraqi elements and weapons & ammo caches looted and Al Qaeda recruiting poster images created at Abu Graib,

Now as a direct result of the invasion Chemical Weapons are finally getting manufactured in the post-Saddam Iraq.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Koka
I've read most of the posts on here but haven't seen anyone refer to her stance on the war prior to the lose of her son.

So, may I ask what her stance was?


She was pro war on the initial evidence.
Pro war until the new documents came out showing the C.I.A. etc were in fact lying to her.


Did anyone bother reading this post? It does not say she was pro-war until her son got killed, it says she was pro-war until new evidence came out showing she was lied to. It is one thing to make a decision on the facts you are given but once you find out that those facts were not real, then most folks re-evaluate their decision. The downing street memo clearly states the intelligence was being fixed to fit the policy, in other words we weere all being lied to because certain people wanted to go to war.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Did anyone bother reading this post? It does not say she was pro-war until her son got killed, it says she was pro-war until new evidence came out showing she was lied to. It is one thing to make a decision on the facts you are given but once you find out that those facts were not real, then most folks re-evaluate their decision. The downing street memo clearly states the intelligence was being fixed to fit the policy, in other words we weere all being lied to because certain people wanted to go to war.


Exactly, "we were all being lied to".

So what makes some of us question what we are being told and take a stance, and others to just soak up the lies, despite being told they are being misguided.

Is it comfort?

This person has been jolted into a reality, unfortunately it took the death of her son to do so.

Please don't get me wrong, she doesn't deserve the pain and anguish which she is suffering, but her motives are not anti-war inspired, it is a reaction, and she needs to blame someone. Her motives are only to do with the unjust killing of her son and has, IMO, little to do with being anti-war.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
All I can say is every little bit helps. Some of us have been graced with a more open attitude than others, it doesn't make us better, just different and some for various reasons have to have an absolute certianity (like bush) and it allows little wiggle room...I am one of the former, my father was (may he rest in peace) one of the latter...another word for it is flexibilty vs. rigidity...Her son's death is her cause but ya know once ya start questioning authority, its hard to stop, once the whole can of worms is open, ya never know where a mind will go...be that as it may, her protest has, not started something, because we were already there, galvanized those of us opposed to this pointless war and given reason to hope we can still do something about it dispite all the venom and lies from the hard right.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
President Bush will not, or should not, meet with her. The reason? Simply because as she has stated so many times to the press what she wants to do is demand (not talk, but demand )of the president to get our troops out of Iraq, and now she also wants us to stop being an ally with Israel......

She is nuts, even thou she has a right to say and think whatever she wants. But how can you talk with someone who already has their minds set into believing that "Israel is the cause of terrorism, and our involvement with Israel has caused terrorism, etc, etc"....? You can't talk with such a person.

President Bush really has nothing else to say to her. They already met and talked about her loss. She is now being drugged (I am borrowing that phrase from you Valhall ;P ) and used not only by the media but by the radical left into demanding the president to stop our relations with Israel, pull out our troops from Iraq, etc.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
President Bush will not, or should not, meet with her. The reason? Simply because as she has stated so many times to the press what she wants to do is demand (not talk, but demand )of the president to get our troops out of Iraq, and now she also wants us to stop being an ally with Israel......

She is nuts, even thou she has a right to say and think whatever she wants. But how can you talk with someone who already has their minds set into believing that "Israel is the cause of terrorism, and our involvement with Israel has caused terrorism, etc, etc"....? You can't talk with such a person.

President Bush really has nothing else to say to her. They already met and talked about her loss. She is now being drugged (I am borrowing that phrase from you Valhall ;P ) and used not only by the media but by the radical left into demanding the president to stop our relations with Israel, pull out our troops from Iraq, etc.


Well, you've certainly got me totally confused here. A citizen is going to demand this and that. WOW, that matters to Bush? Hell, he isn't even listening to half of his constituents, that's right, constituents. Just because he's a Rep. doesn't mean that he can forget the Dems.
Although it seems that way. Again



She is nuts, even thou she has a right to say and think whatever she wants. But how can you talk with someone who already has their minds set into believing that "Israel is the cause of terrorism, and our involvement with Israel has caused terrorism, etc, etc"....? You can't talk with such a person.


Only if your own mind is as closed imo.

I'll ignore the left/right thingy, it's pointless.


into demanding the president to stop our relations with Israel, pull out our troops from Iraq, etc.


Why shouldn't this be discussed? Closed mind again?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I think the thing about not having anything to do with israel comes from the fear from the left. They want to go about their lives not concerned with
terrorists whom, they think, hate us because of israel. They dont seem to realise they will probably hate us no matter what we do. Look at the Israelis, they give these terrorist every thing they want and they still want to destroy israel.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Xphilesphan, I suggest you read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No further verbal warnings.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Well, you've certainly got me totally confused here. A citizen is going to demand this and that. WOW, that matters to Bush? Hell, he isn't even listening to half of his constituents, that's right, constituents. Just because he's a Rep. doesn't mean that he can forget the Dems.
Although it seems that way. Again


First of all, isn't that what she has been saying every time she is on tv?...... She says that israel has to get out of Palestine for terrorism to end. That is first of all a lie, and second of all it is a demand.

Second of all...... let me get this straight....... a Republican president was chosen by the people and now you want him to stand by the issues of Democrats?...... Hummmm, i guess we should have expected president Clinton to side with Republican issues instead of Democrat issues.....

Third, why should the president have to spent his time, again, listening to a woman that wants to demand from the president issues that she believes in and are against Republican issues? (i think she was brainwashed by the left into believing all those lies she is spouting now, less than a year, or a year, after speaking with the president for the first time.)

She believes that she can "save the world" and she has the anwsers.... She is just beating her chest, and spouting the propaganda and lies from the radical left, but she is wrong, plain and simple.

Let's address her statement that Israel should get out of Palestine...

First of all Palestine as a state does not exist yet because the Palestinians have not agreed with any resolutions to create a Palestinian and Israeli state. Second of all, Islamic terrorism is not going to stop if for some reason "Israel get out of Palestine"..... Islamic terrorist want Hindu people to get out of Kashmir, they want Jewish people to get out of Jerusalem, they want to have Andalucia (Spain) back as an Islamic state, and the list keeps going.

Sheenan is just declaring her ignorance on Islamic terrorism, appart from spouting the lies and demands from the left.

She does not want to talk to the president, she wants to demand from him. She already talked to the president and she seemed to agree with him back then. BTW, her son died last year, it wasn't in 2002, or 2001. A year or less passed since she talked to him. It seems that somebody was hard at work brainwashing her...



Originally posted by intrepid
Only if your own mind is as closed imo.


oh, I see...so my mind is closed because Shennan wants to demand things from the president?.... Riiiight....



Originally posted by intrepid
I'll ignore the left/right thingy, it's pointless.


You'll ignore it?.... you are right in the middle with the "left thingy" Intrepid, don't try to play innocent now.....



Originally posted by intrepid
Why shouldn't this be discussed? Closed mind again?


Close minded?....not really, what is there to discuss about stopping being an ally to Israel?.....

What is there to discuss with a woman that claims she has a right not to pay taxes because her son died?......




[edit on 19-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
According to this Cindy Sheehan did not ever support this war. I had seen her during an interview say she did not vote for Bush and thought she said she was against the war from the beginning but I did not want to post something without a link, like most people my memory can be foggy, here is what I found at this website.
www.lewisnews.com...

"It’s interesting that they put us each in separate rooms. I heard this was done to prevent any type of group outburst and since it’s easier to control a situation when people are separated. Looking back, all I can say is that the meeting with Bush was one of the most disgusting experiences in my life.

"And I even asked him: ‘Why did you even bother to bring us here when I didn’t vote for you and don’t support the illegal nature of your war?’ He said it wasn’t political but I know it was just another one of his lies, as he probably wanted to be able to say out on the political stump that he wasn’t afraid to meet with families who lost loved one’s in the war."

Although Sheehan was opposed to the illegal nature of the war from the outset, it wasn’t until January that she began to become politically active.


[edit on 19-8-2005 by goose]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

She was pro war on the initial evidence.
Pro war until the new documents came out showing the C.I.A. etc were in fact lying to her.


Really? what new documents suddenly changed her mind?

Please give us a link where the CIA was lying to her.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by intrepid
I'll ignore the left/right thingy, it's pointless.


You'll ignore it?.... you are right in the middle with the "left thingy" Intrepid, don't try to play innocent now.....


No, I'll BE the logical, not the player.

Nuff said. I won't play your game. It's a stupid one, both sides. My arguement stands on it's own, not because of a predetermined stance.

The reader will see it, why can't you?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No, I'll BE the logical, not the player.

Nuff said. I won't play your game. It's a stupid one, both sides. My arguement stands on it's own, not because of a predetermined stance.

The reader will see it, why can't you?


I don't see exactly how your argument stands on it's own. First you "seem" to be saying that a Republican president should take on the issues of Democrats, and then you state that anyone that decides not to listen or agree with the erroneous views of Shennan is close minded....

How exactly are those arguments standing on their own? There is nothing logical about your arguments.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join