Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

Originally posted by Seekerof
Won't be long before they will be spitting on those troops returning home, just as they did during the Vietnam war.

Or maybe it will. But what about spitting back on Freepers? Does that count?

"[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

Don't look too hard for the irony, you may miss it.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

By my reading, this anti-war demonstration made the warhawk's day. Not only did they get occasion to wear their "Club G'itmo" regalia, but they got to prance around in front of the hospital with signs saying "Shameless Pinkos go Home."

No Seekerof, the only people in danger of being spit on these days are people of conscience.

Just to put everyone's mind at ease, I found out where the protesters were located (from source quoted above) 7200 Georgia Ave., at Elder St., NW and I got the address of Walter Reed and google-mapped it 6900 Georgia Ave. NW, Washington, DC and then I went to the satellite picture.

maps.google.com...

The protesters are on far NE corner of the property, at least 600 feet from the nearest corner of the actual hospital, which is located in the center of the very busy city of Washington DC, with traffic and city noise ALL around.

If the soldiers can hear a WORD the protesters scream, it's because they have bionic hearing and filtering abilities.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If the soldiers can hear a WORD the protesters scream, it's because they have bionic hearing and filtering abilities.

And did you watch the video? It's like 5 people doing Friday night vigils. And the Freepers look like about 5 people too.

I feel like I need a shower now for even reading about 10 people. There's nothing here but made for internet outrage. This whole topic is a huge waste of time.

Originally posted by RANT
There's nothing here but made for internet outrage.

Apparently, but it's well worth it to me to reveal it as such.

This whole topic is a huge waste of time.

I don't feel it was a waste of my time at all. I found out where I really stand on this particular protest and I educated myself (and possibly others did as well) as to what is actually going on there and what the protesters' intentions are, where their focus is and what's important to them as well as to the freepers across the street in the 'morally acceptable' protest zone.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't feel it was a waste of my time at all. I found out where I really stand on this particular protest and I educated myself (and possibly others did as well) as to what is actually going on there and what the protesters' intentions are, where their focus is and what's important to them as well as to the freepers across the street in the 'morally acceptable' protest zone.

Well sure. But this wasn't necessary over 5 people any more than the emergency response overreaction unit from FreeRepublic.

Originally posted by ferretwhatever
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

The liberal, anti-warers have stooped to a new low.

These are disgusting people.

Nothing here indicates the decline of society or skilled goober marksmen lining up to lugie soldiers like their last name is Fonda.

And I still don't care about Cindy Sheehan or anyone like her. Nobody speaks for me but me.

Originally posted by RANT
Or maybe it will. But what about spitting back on Freepers? Does that count?

Freepers had nothing to do with my slant or take on this, RANT.
I am 5th generation military, and have served 8 years myself and been in two known conflicts, as with some various unknowns, as well.
Your point in bringing the freepers into a reference with me was?

Don't look too hard for the irony, you may miss it.

As you may miss the irony of the angle of perspective that I come from on this, as referenced above.

No Seekerof, the only people in danger of being spit on these days are people of conscience.

Really?
Have you asked those mass numbers of Vietnam vets if the only ones that got spit on among them were those "of conscience"? Or better yet, maybe you can find some of those that did the actual spitting on those returning home Vietnam troops/vets and tell us if they were the only "people of conscience", thus giving them the right to do the spitting?

An even better idea would have you starting with my father, who btw, spent 5 months at Walter Reed after returning from serving his third tour in Vietnam, by ask him how he felt when he got spit on a number of times and ask him if those that did the spitting were "people of conscience"? Or maybe you can ask my mother who was there when he got off the plane from his last return trip from Vietnam and had not walked no more than 50 feet outside the airport gate before they were spit on not once, but a number of times, for which she still vividly remembers and talks of today. Yeah, maybe you can start with them first and assert to them that baloney about "people of conscience"?

Having put my arse in the line of fire a number of times, I can't speak for my father, but I can certainly assert this with great confidence: many of you have little to no clue as to what freedom or "conscience" is till you have put your life on the line in military service via combat. Of course, as I have openly said before within these hallowed forums of ATS, your, as with others, versions of freedom and conscience are quite different from my versions. More than likely a matter of perspective, eh?

Those who are against this war, or any war or conflict, have every right to protest and sound off, but there comes a time when those who are doing such need to be able to identify the proper place and time to act upon their rights of and to protest. Simple matter of discernment for actual "people of conscience".

This protest in front of Walter Reed is reprehensible, and for those seeking to disrespect the troops and military anymore than they currently are by doing this, remember during and the end of the Vietnam war and the spitting on the troops or the proclaimations of them being "baby-killers," etc. How much more disdain can some show than they currently are, all the while, chanting "we support the troops"? Definately "people of conscience", huh? The Vietnam war anti-war movement sought every avenue to disrespect and dishonor the troops who fought in Vietnam, just as the Iraq war anti-war movement is now doing with those in and coming from Iraq. If you want a real bonafide Vietnam-Iraq analogy/comparison, there it is.





seekerof

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Frankly, I think if the wounded soldiers inside the hospital are going to be pissed off about anything, it's not this small bunch of peaceful protestors (I saw the video... there were like 10-15 people there at most.) They probably are more concerned with how smoothly the transition is going to go once they close down Walter Reid hospital, as was announced today.

I wouldn't join these particular protestors though. I find it kind of indignified to protest outside a hospital with war wounded. Hospitals should be "immune" areas from any kind of political activity, be it pro-war or anti-war (not to mention war itself.)

-koji K.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Freepers had nothing to do with my slant or take on this, RANT.
I am 5th generation military, and have served 8 years myself and been in two known conflicts, as with some various unknowns, as well.
Your point in bringing the freepers into a reference with me was?

Freepers, specifically, are there protesting every week too. And pretty hostile as evident by the "Pinkos Go Home" slogans. You estimated, however, it wouldn't be long before the "bring the troops home" side of the protests yielded to spitting on troops as some implied necessity of being anti-Iraq war equating to anti-troop violence.

That's simply not the case. And I don't care how many generations of your family surrendered their brains for a US Government paycheck, that thinking is absent logic no matter what bedtime stories your Mom and Dad keep telling you.

Yeah, maybe you can start with them first and assert to them that baloney about "people of conscience"?

No thanks. I'm sure you've adeqately recounted the jist of your/their thinking. Tell you what though, when somebody spits on somebody (besides Jane Fonda) in this millennium, you let me know and I'll condemn it. In the meantime, we'll just make due with your recounting of how this is just like Vietnam (or about to be any day now) according to vividly recounted tales of humiliation from your mother.

Having put my arse in the line of fire a number of times, I can't speak for my father, but I can certainly assert this with great confidence: many of you have little to no clue as to what freedom or "conscience" is till you have put your life on the line in military service via combat.

Blah, blah, blah. Brave, wise and modest. What? Did my tax check not clear? You're welcome.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have a clue as to what freedom or "conscience" is without escorting a fuel tanker safely to profit.

I have nothing but compassion and respect for those generations past whether they volunteered or were drafted. And believe it or not I do for today's recruits as well, but no more than dog catchers, cops, construction workers and school teachers. In fact, dog catchers, cops, construction workers and school teachers don't seem to be quite as delusional about their self worth or value.

Isn't it the warhawk's whole argument that the troops are expendable? While the anti-war crowd says you're not "acceptable losses..." That you shouldn't have to "put your arse on the line" for manipulated intelligence, political clout and re-elections... at least according to them.

So which is it? Are you freaking minimum wage geniuses with a rifle that know better than anyone what "freedom" and "conscience" is, or expendable as the pro-war crowd asserts? When Bush says we're fighting the enemy (which happens to be terrorists) there, so as not to fight them here, what does that mean besides... the troops are just terrorists targets. Not in harms way for some other objective... but THAT is the objective. To be in harm's way.

No, this is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam actually had a point.

YOU know people this is getting tiresome, only the pro-war believers are the ones making such a big deal.

Since when protesting against the tragedies of war is against the law?

Since when protesting against the war is against the law?

Since when protesting against the government is AGAINST the law?

Only when one side feels offended by it, that's when is against the law.

This thread belong in PTS.


This th

Originally posted by Seekerof
many of you have little to no clue as to what freedom or "conscience" is till you have put your life on the line in military service via combat.

This calls into focus a question I've had for a while: why is it that many military people think they have some special, exotic view of the truth, freedom, conscience or any other ideology, just because they have been in combat? They have a special view of what it is to be in combat, no doubt. But not some special view of The Truth.

We all have experiences in our lives that give us our own special views of life's principles, but one is not superior or more valid than another. Just different.

I could say, because of my experiences, "Many of you have no clue what real love or respect are until you've held your mother's hand as she dies." but I'd be terribly full of crap. There are many other ways to experience love and respect in life.

Yes, I've been derided by military folks before, basically told I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't served. And I just want to say here that while I do not know what it's like to be in combat, I DO know what freedom is as well as anyone. I have fought for my freedom. We all have had experiences in life that qualifes us to speak with knowledge about freedom, honor, respect, love, challenge, conscience.

Military people have no exclusive rights on these ideologies. Any more than women do because they can have children, or any more than old people do because they've lived life and young people haven't.

You have the experience of being in the military, and I respect that, but you hold no rights to the knowledge of what freedom or honor really mean. You have your own perspective, as you said, but it's no better or more real than mine or anyone's. Just different.

Originally posted by marg6043
YOU know people this is getting tiresome, only the pro-war believers are the ones making such a big deal.

Since when protesting against the tragedies of war is against the law?

Since when protesting against the war is against the law?

Since when protesting against the government is AGAINST the law?

Only when one side feels offended by it, that's when is against the law.

The legality of this is not the issue! We all know it's legal, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Are you a supporter of the death penalty? It's legal. Therefore you should support it? The law does not dictate ethics, it dictates what you can do without having to spend time in jail or otherwise be punished by the legal system.

Legally, they have every right to be out there doing what they're doing. Ethically, they belong underground living with worms and slugs. These are two totally different issues.

Well, then, jake, how far away from the hospital would they have to be to be ethically 'right'? I know you think they shouldn't be near the hospital at all, but if they wanted to protest in their front yard, how far away from the hospital should they live to have an ethical protest?

If you've read my research here, you know the soldiers probably can't see them and certainly can't hear them at all. If you've seen the video, you know there are about 5 protesters and they're behind trees and hidden from the hospital.

Please tell me what is morally wrong with what they're doing? They're not bothering the soldiers, so what is 'wrong' with what they're doing?

I have read, here on this thread and on in sources, though I haven't confirmed, that they have harassed the families coming to visit the soldiers. The government has to transport the wounded into the hospital at night to avoid a scene. Protest in front of congress. Protest in front of military recruiting stations, as CodePink is doing. Protest at military bases. Protest at Bush's ranch in Crawford. Don't protest where the casualties are being taken. Don't harass those who have already lost so much (the families) to make a political statement.

Also, the wounded may not be able to hear them, or even see them. Do you think they're not aware, therefore? Is the hospital a bubble that shields them from all press, their families' stories of trying to get in, etc.? They know they're there, protesting in front of this building created to fix them up after tragedy strikes their lives.

Wouldn't that be a great feeling? Let's bring this down to a personal level. Imagine you're walking down the street, and a mugger starts to attack a woman in front of you and yanks her down an alley. You go to help her, and he pulls a gun. You start wrestling with the gun and end up shooting the guy in the face, killing him, but not before he shot both of your knees. The woman takes off and you go to the hospital. As you're sitting in your hospital bed, your family comes to see you and says there is a woman protesting stopping muggers in front of your hospital, and it turns out it's the woman you helped. You hobble out and confront her because of it, and she says she fully supports you and your recovery, but hates violent acts to stop crime, and goes back to holding up her sign, "He tried and a man died," while another protester of your type of heroic action holds up a sign saying "we support heroes." What are you going to believe?

If they held up signs saying "We don't support the troops" then they wouldn't be so hypocritical, and, in a skewed way, it would be ethical to be protesting in front of the hospital, in my opinion.

[edit on 8-26-2005 by junglejake]

yeah, the anti-war group doesnt seem to understand there is a time and a place to make a political statement and it's not in front of a hospital where soldiers are returning and recovering from iraq are! you dont like bush? you dont like the war? go tell him about it! leave the low man on the totem poll alone.

In this day and time Jake, the definition of "Morals" "ethics" "Decency" and "Political Correctness" is view depending on which side you are in.

Ironic, Right?

RANT,
After carefully reading (more than once) the content of your last post, one has to wonder who appointed you a moderator and why.

It is true that people have different concepts of "freedom" and "conscience". It is also true that some people feel more strongly about those concepts. Some people are actually motivated to act on those strong feelings. And then there are those who are happy to just sit there on their fat a$$es and complain about it.

Words are worthless. Words are cheap, hollow, ambiguous, and often filled with lies. I am now old enough to realize the best judgement of a person's character, good or bad, is not by their words, but rather by their deeds. I take very little at what anyone says at face value; I prefer to watch them in action. You know, its about "talking the talk, and walking the walk". I feel that you last post epitomizes that concept. IMHO, there is a world of difference between your take on events, and Seekerof's take, based upon my way of looking at people, and what they choose to believe.

But hey, I guess you can just "blah, blah, blah" me away too, because, hey, I'm just another ex-serviceman ("minimum wage geniuses with a rifle") who is too stupid to think for himself, can't for educated opinions, and was conned into joining up if the first place.....

And I have news for you, Marg6043...... I am against this war, as I was in the beginning, and yet I still manage to feel that the protests at this military hospital are gross, inappropriate, exploitive, insulting, and downright unpatriotic. They all need a good beating, or at least a few months on point our in the war zone, so maybe they could learn to appreciate the peace and tranquility that a wounded soldier convalescing at a hospital is supposed to be entitled to.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do I think? Man, if I was in the hospital under these conditions - looking down on the bed where my feet used to be would be a constant reminder. I wouldn't need to be reminded. Any other reminders would be moot.

What I would LIKE to be reminded of, though, is that someone I don't even know cares enough about me to devote their time and energy to making sure I'm taken care of financially by the country I freaking lost my legs for!!

If the protestors care about the soldier's benefits, medical costs, etc., then it would do much more good to focus their energies by protesting at the places where the policy makers gather - Capitol Hill.

Originally posted by Pyros
and yet I still manage to feel that the protests at this military hospital are gross, inappropriate, exploitive, insulting, and downright unpatriotic. They all need a good beating, or at least a few months on point our in the war zone, so maybe they could learn to appreciate the peace and tranquility that a wounded soldier convalescing at a hospital is supposed to be entitled to.

Then you most feel about that the same when it comes to both sides protesting in front of the hospital.

Obviously you didn't read all my posts before posting your opinion, and at the end is all about the way news are use to benefit one side over the other one.

Its the way people perceive certain things and opinion on how they are to be handle.

When a soldiers funeral was used by a democrat for political reasons it was all over the news.

When a religious group protested on another soldiers funeral it wasn't that important for the news.

When protesters do their protest in front of a hospital then that is news again.

When a mother protest the death of her son, that is news.

See the pattern is all about what makes the news more interesting and more favorable to instigate the public opinion and outrage.

Is this a fair game? Well I never said that I agree with the moral side of it, but what all these above protest have in common? they are done under the freedom of speech they are peaceful and they are protected by the law.

That we may find it inmoral or moraly right is beyond the point that is just opinion and that is just what is being exploited here.

Originally posted by Pyros
RANT,
After carefully reading (more than once) the content of your last post, one has to wonder who appointed you a moderator and why.

Commander of the Armed Forces was taken, so I had to settle.

Guess I needed more DUI's to be qualified to truly understand "freedom" since I have as much coveted "combat experience" as the War President currently spreading both around hard, deep and thick.

What's not to get in my last post? It's pretty clear.

A vet isn't any more qualified to pontificate about "freedom" than anyone else on this board. In fact, one that does so while intrinsically linking that opinion to a presumed necessity of support for this war is inherently suspect in my opinion. More-so by claiming that being anti-Iraq war is anti-vet or will necessarily precipitate violence against vets.

So the time and place of protests matters? Hogwash. Go peddle your patriotic correctness somewhere else. And build a "freedom zone" or two while you're at it.

Then we'll round up the anti-choice crowd and stick them in there too away from all the clinics. And we'll only let women have opinions on the abortion issue, since no man could possibly understand what it's like to have a mastocyst burrowing into your fallopian tube. Actually, that one kinda makes sense.

But the people so incensed a handful of protesters against the Iraq war do so in the vicinity of a hospital they specifically chose to bring attention to the fact we have maimed and wounded soldiers coming home (or similarly pissed Sheehan would dare bother the Pres-e-dent on his 5 week vacation), probaby see no problem with throwing pigs blood on women walking into a clinic facing the hardest decision of their life.

What? Are Iraq war vets not as big and tough as 16 year old girls? Can't handle it? Want to pass some new laws to protect their delicate sensibilities? How about some good old superfluous Republican legislation that says we have to respect the opinion of combat vets above all others. Now that's funny considering most of those chickenhawks did everything they could to never see a day of combat, but demonize any opponent that did.

What about the anti-Iraq war vets though? Just traitors right? You said you're a vet against the Iraq war. What's wrong? Didn't you see enough combat to know what freedom is? Perhaps if you'd personally saved Jessica or pulled a senior citizen out of spider hole, you'd understand better where some of our decorated young bucks are coming from.

After all, you and me and the vast majority of this country that think the Iraq war simply isn't worth it, apparently don't know our asses from a spider-hole in the ground according to a bunch of kids raised on first person shooters (that weren't even born during Vietnam) that think joining up under Bush is not only a good way to pay for college, but a good way to learn what "freedom" is all about.

And what's my mod status got to do with anything by the way? If you truly paid attention you'd see I'm not the one pulling "rank" in this thread.