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.

 

Anti-War Protestors Attack National Guard

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Police are searching for five men who brutally assaulted a uniformed National Guardsman while he was walking down the sidewalk in Parkland, Washington. According to the witnesses' accounting, the attack was specifically targeted at him for being military personnel. This is the first such incident known of in the county, and the attackers appeared to be organized, the attack premeditated.
 

 



www.kirotv.com
The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.

“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


To be honest, I could see one of three situations here.

1.) It is entirely possible (in the story's area) for this to have been an act by very ignorant and over-zealous antiwar activists. I used to live in Seattle, Washington. I lived through the WTO riots. I was downtown when the city was terrorized to the point of being a demilitarized zone. Activists in Washington are nuts. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but they are. Sane people don't overturn busses, set them on fire, and toss other people through plate-glass windows. The other 3 years I lived there, I witnessed similar ideas of what constituted a "protest". Now before the flames start, I didn't say all of them were like this, or that protesting the war is bad, just that I know for a fact that these kind of people exist in prolific quantities in that area.

2.) It is equally possible that the soldier witnessed a car full of protestors (via a bumper sticker, or some such) and started verbally abusing them first. There are a large number of vets in the area, and they do not smile kindly upon the anti-war protestors. Ironically, it is not because these soldiers like war any more than the protestors, but because the protestors typically have no idea what they are talking about (again, I am a first-hand witness to the scale of ignorant zealot this area houses, not all anti-war protestors are bad and neither are soldiers).

3.) Far less probable is the possibility that this is the beginning of a series of coordinated assaults against troops at home. I'm really not going to consider this possibility too much unless I start hearing about a lot of copycat crimes. However, if they do start happening in numbers across the U.S., it would almost seem a precursor to revolution.

The assailants were all white, and most wore red baseball caps and/or red sweatshirts. So this also brings to mind a fourth possibility,

4.) It may have just been coincidence by a gang looking to have a good time beating someone up, and the fact that their victim was a uniformed National Guardsman simply made the hit that much more novel for the group. Extra punk points, if you will.

In any event, it is a mystery for the moment. What is known is that this has sparked an angry round of outcries from veterans and non-veterans alike about the ever-growing schism tearing apart the country.

Related News Links:
littlegreenfootballs.com




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
WE had another thread about this somewhere but I cant find it.

But it does have the same feel of certain radical groups in the 1960's.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Sickening
Disgusting
Disturbing

Agree with Iraq, do not agree with Iraq; These men and women of Honor, put on the uniform of this country and place their lives in jeopardy for us.

Semper



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
So much for the playing the peace card.

Anti-war=Anti-America.

Nothing new here. Move along.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
While I find this sickening, as others, perhaps there may be more sinister motives?

5.) Government job to discredit the anti-war movement.
Why would staging stunts like this be below them? What better way to discredit ideological opponents than by dressing up like them and committing haneous acts in their name? Organizations such as the CIA or FBI have infiltrated various movements (including anti-Vietnam War movements) before in order to discredit them. Perhaps this is an aggressive move to discredit a movement that is gaining momentum against the hawkish globalist adgenda.

It's far out there, but still a possibility. Something to chew on.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
and yet, if he had hurt one or all of them defending himself, he'd be slaughtered in the court of public opinion.

i cant say i agree with anyone ever who does the "antiwar=antiamerican" as everyone has their own opinions and can disagree with the war and STILL be a very patriotic person. but to attack a soldier just for being a soldier, especially when its 5v1 and they hold a gun on him, thats just chickendoo.

bunch of losers with too much time on their hands. their mommas shoulda spanked em more.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
5.) Government job to discredit the anti-war movement.

It's far out there, but still a possibility. Something to chew on.


It's utterly preposterous and doesn't deserve a moment's consideration.

[edit on 2006/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
There a bunch of dumb#$@ how there they don't know this isn't a way to protest a war!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
You're too young to remember the sixties and seventies, aren't you.

I'll never forget.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You're too young to remember the sixties and seventies, aren't you.
I'll never forget.


If you think stories like this being used to discredit the peace movement is perposterous, then there's a big junk of the 60's and 70's you have either forgotten about or in fact new nothing about in the first place.

Media has been used by the gov, ever since it's inception, to discredit every political or cultural movement they didn't agree with.

The idea that this news story isn't part of a campaign to discredit the peace movement is perposterous.

Expect to see more stories like this in the next few months. Take them with a pinch of salt, stay alert, don't let the majority close your mind. It's easier to be a sheep, but extremely dangerous to your liberty.

BTW age doesn't necessarily make you wiser
And being there doesn't mean you understood what you saw



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Or it could be just another case of a Soldier walking around in uniform (who happened to be an Iraq war vet) and getting beat up. That is fairly common in Tacoma, Wa., which Parkland is a part of. Soldiers from Fort Lewis get beat up or killed all the time there.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bg_socalif
Soldiers from Fort Lewis get beat up or killed all the time there.


Oh well, I guess it's okay then. Nothing to get concerned about, Just business, as usual, like I said before.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I'm an iraq vet and a guardsmen

i don't think antiwar=anti america

i've never been assalted or anything close, but people have spit infront of my path i just look back at them and continue on my way

i wonder of the age of the people who assualted the soldier, because one thing i noticed is that younger people 18-29 r much more aggressive with thier views and tend not to be open to debate where as older people i know.

example 1.) sister is anti war, we don't talk at anymore, but so is my mom but we talk about the war alot

example 2.) after comming home i contacted my old best friend about why i recieved no letters from her, she simply said she hated me for fighting an illegal war. her mother though a french prof at harvard who is also antiwar sent me many letters while there and is still more than happy to communicate with me

I basicly just think people r too polarized with thier views right now



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
If a person treats American service members as though they are the enemy then that person is anti-American. It's as simple as that, in my book. You are either with us or you are against us, to quote a famous American.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
5.) Government job to discredit the anti-war movement.

It's far out there, but still a possibility. Something to chew on.


It's utterly preposterous and doesn't deserve a moment's consideration.

[edit on 2006/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]


Given its activities in the past, I believe you are grossly underestimating what our government is capable of.

Here are books II and III of the Church Committee’s findings on FBI domestic covet intelligence activities. I’m sure what they uncovered is not even the half of it.


The tactics used against Americans often risked and sometimes caused serious emotional, economic, or physical damage. Actions were taken which were designed to break up marriages, terminate funding or employment, and encourage gang warfare between violent rival groups. Due process of law forbids the use of such covert tactics, whether the victims are innocent law-abiding citizens or members of groups suspected of involvement in violence.


So, here we have precedent of the government fostering violence to hurt movements it disagrees with. For example, according to the Report, the FBI incited inter-gang violence in order to bring down the Black Panther Party. Whether you agree with aims of the BPP, or not (I don’t and assume you don’t), do the ends justify the means for the FBI?


Although the claimed purpose of the Bureau's COINTELPRO tactics was to prevent violence, some of the FBI's tactics against the BPP were clearly intended to foster violence, and many others could reasonably have been expected to cause violence.



Although individual incidents in this dispute cannot be directly traced to efforts by the FBI, FBI officials were clearly aware of the violent nature of the dispute, engaged in actions which they hoped would prolong and intensify the dispute, and proudly claimed credit for violent clashes between the rival factions which. in the words of one FBI official, resulted in "shootings, beatings, and a high degree of unrest in the area of southeast San Diego."



Another technique which risked serious harm to the target was falsely labeling a target an informant. This technique was used in all five domestic COINTELPROs. When a member of a nonviolent group was successfully mislabeled as an informant, the result was alienation from the group. When the target belonged to a group known to have killed suspected informants, the risk was substantially more serious.


That’s just a small sampling from the Church report regarding the BPP. Other targets included the peace movement, socialist movements, the American Indian movement, etc. The FBI's actions against Dr. Martin Luther King amounted to a personal war against one person. Whether you agree with the opinions of these groups or not, the methods the FBI used were unconstitutional. What good is the constitution if it only protects people that agree with the mainstream?

Such types of actions to ruin, or discredit groups continue today. Here's an article examining a public warning the FBI put out in 2002, characterizing a peaceful inter-faith candlelight procession as a property-destroying, lootfest because of a posting by some mysterious, out of the nowhere peace group (gov't front organization?).


Does the FBI know more about upcoming activities of the antiwar movement than the antiwar movement itself? Or is its recent communiqui a blatant attempt to scare the public, smear the antiwar movement and discourage antiwar protests?


The government has done these types of things before, and has ability and motive to do it again. I'm not saying that this is what happened with this case in WA, but it is something to consider.

EDIT: Spelling.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
In response to GradyPhilpott

i can agree if people people think a service member is the enemy than that person is anti-american, but most american people have never really have no idea about the world around them and that most people in the world are not free and have no rights

ie: when children in schools learn about other countries such as Iran/N. korea little or no time is spent on the goverment of the nation so when they learn that we don't do buisness with the country, they do not learn why and they only think that it is the U.S. that is doing wrong so naturaly american people believe that we are the only bad

maybe if school systems taught about the goverments of other countries people would realize that the United States of America is the best thing going for this world.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by bucca220]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I want to write a long and well-thought out reply, but I don't know what to say.

I'm just disgusted.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by bg_socalif
Soldiers from Fort Lewis get beat up or killed all the time there.


Oh well, I guess it's okay then. Nothing to get concerned about, Just business, as usual, like I said before.


Nowhere did i say it's okay. I'm retired military, just to make sure it's clear....it's not okay.

But when you have 20,000+ soldiers like Fort Lewis has, this stuff happens. I grew up in that area, almost everday (guaranteed on weekends) there's gonna be something in the paper about a Fort Lewis soldier being beat up, robbed, beating his wife, or killed. Personally i think if he hadn't been a Iraqi war vet, not alot would've been said about the incident.

Yes it could be some anti-war folks that did it. On the other hand it could be some yahoo's that just don't like the military.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Just because the government is capable of doing something doesn't automatically mean they did it. I've never had this kind of thing happen to me...in all honesty, while hopping flights to get home between deployments, people stopped and shook my hand, thanking me for my service and telling me they're proud, which means a lot to a guy who just barely turned 21.

Although all of the scenarios thelibra came up with are plausible, bg's is likely it.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bucca220


i can agree if people people think a service member is the enemy than that person is anti-american, but most american people have never really have no idea about the world around them and that most people in the world are not free and have no rights


[edit on 4-9-2006 by bucca220]


Perhaps it is you that has no idea of the world around you. My idea of freedom is different then yours no doubt, and so would be my ideas of rights; so are everybodies from everywhere. Freedom and rights are relative to the observer.

By 'most' do you mean numbers of individuals or numbers of coutries? IMO 'most' people are free and are afforded rights. They are different from America's freedoms and rights, but America's freedoms and rights don't top the list. Noone's does. Like I said it's relative.

Let us also be clear on something else. Just because a person has chosen to wear a military uniform does not make one patriotic, a hero, or any other qualities. It is one's deeds which gives them qualities. I would say most military men and women are quite patriotic and can be considered heros; but let's be real here. MANY put on the uniform for selfish reasons. Money, housing, easy career to get into or just the plain violent folk who want nothing more than to fire weapons and kill things.

And as for these punks who did this to that man; well, that's all we can derive from this article. That these guys were punks.


...but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.


So that leaves us with only the word of the man that was beaten. I've been around 'tough' people who enjoy voicing it, get beat down terribly and say things just like this guy did. Their ego's are bruised and potray the incident like they were minding there own business when they were attacked. The guy in the article probably made the 'baby killer' statement so we all feel sorry for him.

I don't necessarily believe what I just said, just seen this kinda situation before.

So we don't know jack, and to make such passionate, deliberate statements in this thread is just silly.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join