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.

 

Sheehan Leads War Protest in Spain...shocking comments

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Sheehan Leads War Protest in Spain...

...called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."

10's of thousands died in Vietnam how she can say Iraq is worse I can't understand? Is she saying these things for shock value??

Does this help or hurt that War on Terror?

When will "crazy cindy" stop making a fool of herself??

-- Boat




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
OOPS,

Here is the link...

Link to story.


-- Boat



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Great! Let her stay in Spain...she'll get along well with its socialist government.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
She must really be desperate for attention now, if she has to go to Spain to lead a 100 person protest.

I'm curious as to who paid for her plane ticket an accomodation, I'd be willing to bet it wasn't her. She doesn't seem particularly bright, so it would be easy to use her as a pawn



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Sheehan Leads War Protest in Spain...

...called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."

10's of thousands died in Vietnam how she can say Iraq is worse I can't understand? Is she saying these things for shock value??

Does this help or hurt that War on Terror?

When will "crazy cindy" stop making a fool of herself??

-- Boat



Yes, I would think she's saying it for shock value, but I also believe she's delusional and believes her own press. I don't think she'll stop making a fool of herself until the funds dry up that are helping her continue this. No, I don't believe anything she's done hurts the war on terrorism, just the opposite, it hurts the legitimate complaints a portion of the U.S. citizenry has against how the misdirected military action in Iraq is hurting the War on Terrorism.

Cindy has allowed herself to become a tool that actually is being used to hurt the legitimate concerns she originally had. Some one needs to get this woman some psychological help - not only for her own good, but for the good of staying logical on the real talking points.

She has a red nose and big shoes and she's an utter waste of a distraction. I, too, hope she finds a new home in Spain.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Mmmmm... who is more delusional?

At least she isn't spending US taxpayer money in drumming up support for the anti-war movement. Unlike Mr Bush and his cronies who spent the run up to the invasion flying all over the place buying support to form a "coalition of the willing"



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
At least she isn't spending US taxpayer money in drumming up support for the anti-war movement. Unlike Mr Bush and his cronies who spent the run up to the invasion flying all over the place buying support to form a "coalition of the willing"



LOL, if that's the best argument you can make for her, then you obviously agree with everything else that has been said in this thread about her



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Come on now, be fair. She hasn't got the budget to pay for staged photo ops in front of military captive audiences, a private jet or the big media corporations salivating for a few words like the warhawks have.

Even an idiot would have to admit that Shrub's "Mission Accomplished" banner was a little premature and that things have only been getting worse since.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
shocking comments...
...called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."



Shocking! It's the same thing she's been saying for months, but it's shocking? What...? Did you expect something else from her? Why are you shocked?

I always find it amusing that the people who complained daily when she was in the news that she wasn't newsworthy, are the same people who keep making ATS threads about her!


War protests exist. It's a very unpopular war. Many people are against it and they have a right to be as vocal as they like.

Oh, and many people agree with her and support her in what she's doing.
You're not going to get everyone to knock her down, try as you might. But have fun... and keep bringing her up and keeping her mission alive. I'm sure she appreciates it.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I'm curious as to who paid for her plane ticket an accomodation, I'd be willing to bet it wasn't her.


Jane Fonda ? Tim Robbins ? John Kerry ? Hillary ?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Losing a son is a heart breaking, gut wrenching experience. Like thousands of other US and tens of thousands of Iragi mothers - her heart has been broken and she's angry.

I, for one, admire her courage to step up and point the finger right where it needs to be pointed.

You can flame her (and me) all you want - but it doesn't change any of the FACTS:

1. There were NO WMDs
2. We had 100% of world support and sympathy after 9/11 and that was squandered by Bush's myopic desire to topple Saddam's rule.

I could go on but I'll spare all of you. Just remember next time you want to flame Cindy - think about how you would feel if your son were killed for no damn reason.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
She lost a son, ok that sux we all know that, But the poo she does and says only makes her look like a please refer to your own sentence below.

If she could argue her case without the constant name calling and childish remarks, she might be able to garner some legitimacy.

Mod Edit: Civility & Decorum.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
I could go on but I'll spare all of you. Just remember next time you want to flame Cindy - think about how you would feel if your son were killed for no damn reason.


I want to go on record as saying that I do agree with everything youve said, so there is no confusion as to my intent.
However, I would like to point out a few things, just some opinion. Like in a court of law, sometimes its not always important on what you say but what it is you dont say as well.
Like Val said, by saying the wrong things at the wrong times tends to detract from the ultimate goal. By grandstanding and showing herself to be (not that she is but SHOWING herself to be) unstable, the general concensus of anyone attemtpting to comprehend that side of the fence is that ALL who ride that side of the fence are unstable.
Perception becomes reality...especially in cases like this. What Cindy SHOULD be doing is rallying information BEFORE she rallies support, THEN fight back with informed counter-stance. Yet, some of us who DO have the ability to see things in a completely objective view DO understand that she is acting out in an ultra-emotional manner.
Of course losing a child, be it son or daughter, is heart wrenching enough, let alone if you feel it was for an agenda that is transparently disingenuous.
I applaud her for her COURAGE to stand up for what she believes in (and coincidentally agree with her concept), but i DONT agree with her tactics..emotional outbreaks no matter how well intended they are, or how right they are, ever win a battle of the people who want less adversity.
This is just my opinion.


AB1



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Sock puppet

To be honest, I am not seeing the shock value here.
I simply see another puppet for the anti-war movement who has gone from a grieving mother to an media instrument for the anti-war movement.

As such, anything that comes out her mouth should not be shocking at all, IMHO. Especially when considering or taking into account what she has claimed and asserted in the past. Her track record on this war speaks for itself.





seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken (and I could be!), I believe it was with the emergence of Cindy Sheehan that we saw a very sharp decline in Bush's ratings.

If that is true - than regardless of how I might feel her current tactics might be more productive - I believe she's accomplished quite a bit.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
By grandstanding and showing herself to be (not that she is but SHOWING herself to be) unstable, the general concensus of anyone attemtpting to comprehend that side of the fence is that ALL who ride that side of the fence are unstable.


I do see your point. And my response is... "Oh, well." Meaning that regerdless of how unstable she may appear, people are always giong to judge the circumstances to fit their agenda.

In other words, a war supporter isn't going to look at Cindy Sheehan and think, "You know I was considering changing my stance on this war but that crazy lady has changed my mind. I think I'll continue to support the war because Cindy Sheehan represents the 'anti-war' crowd."

If a person decides to change from a war supporter to the anti-war stance, it's going to have very little to do with one woman, crazy or not. Likely it will have to do with many other factors and Cindy's tactics aren't going to matter one way or another.

Any more that Pat Robertson could keep people from becoming a Christian.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
If I'm not mistaken (and I could be!), I believe it was with the emergence of Cindy Sheehan that we saw a very sharp decline in Bush's ratings.

If that is true - than regardless of how I might feel her current tactics might be more productive - I believe she's accomplished quite a bit.



Initially, yes...but NOW? The timing you speak of is probably correct, but I believe that would have been the case with or without her tactics. Almost from day 1, people were doubting the integrity of what had happened on 9/11 and the administration was under close scrutiny. I think it may just be coincidence. I think the real drop in ratings may have been more related to the drafting of the Patriot Act.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I have noticed something over the last few years. It seems to me that over 90% of the liberals I have ever seen or met have been, ugly looking, frail and weak looking individuals. I have never seen a ripped out, weightlifter athletic type liberal. Why is this? I believe they are liberal because they are afraid of everything. They have grown up their whole lives afraid of bigger men, the bullies and ugly women hate the good looking women who the majority are republican. Why is it that the Republicans always seem to look fit, athletic, and properly business like. Also, why do all the cars liberals drive with the bumper stickers, for kerry, are all foriegn made automobiles and/or old smoking volvos, arent you supposed to love the environment? Anybody explain these parodies to me?

Train



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
With all due respect....... I'm sure you could have come up with something better than this, right?

Perhaps you forgot the LOL at the end and were trying your hand at some humor?

Enough said.....



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

10's of thousands died in Vietnam how she can say Iraq is worse I can't understand? Is she saying these things for shock value??



The war in Iraq has begun 2 years ago... the Vietnam war lasted more than a decade. There's no relevance to compare death tolls here, but I still think that the War on Terror made more deaths proportionally than the Vietnam war.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join