Anti-War Protestors Attack National Guard

Where does it say that these thugs are "anti-war activists" or "anti war protestors"? They obviously attacked a Guardsman and shouted things about his service, but nowhere do I read "anti-war activists" or "anti war protestors"

The title is misleading. This was an attack by thugs, not at an 'activist' event or at a protest.

:shk: Shame on ya.

I find this to be quite suspicious! From your link:

A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.

The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.

I'll wait to hear more on this story before jumping on the bandwagon to smear the reputation of "anti-war protesters". Thanks.

If this story is true, there's no indication that these guys were anything other than a group of thugs.

Yeah I'm wondering how we know that these attackers are "anti-war activists" and not just some random goons trying to act like tough guys.

Besides that though, anyone attacking a soldier because they don't like a particular war is an idiot. Soldiers dont start wars, they're just the poor suckers that have to go fight them.

The guardsman, Alexander Powell, said he was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at Powell. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him, calling him a "baby killer" during the attack, according to Powell.

www.kirotv.com...

That's really about all I need to know. It's not like the "anti-war" crowd has a history of non-violence.

Originally posted by semperfortis
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

Hell, some of the military that is fighting disagrees with the war, and are still over there, protecting their country's interests. remember, sometimes, even when your country is wrong, you ought to be more worried about defending it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
That's really about all I need to know. It's not like the "anti-war" crowd has a history of non-violence.

Yeah, that "anti-war" crowd driving their SUVs and carrying their guns!

C'mon, Grady. There's somthing fishy about this story...

Definitely more to this than meets the eye, I agree with BH.

Why did the witness change the story? Coercion maybe, or perhaps collusion?

Maybe the guardsman did something his fellows didn't appreciate, and this was their way of getting a little payback. Could be that the one who got beaten and threatened made up this story to protect his real attackers, and by doing so, protect himself from more abuse.

It bothers me that we haven't seen a picture of this guy - he's entitled to his privacy though, I suppose.

It certainly seems to me that in this instance 'some black guy' has been replaced by 'some anti-war protesters' - boogeyman syndrome with a new face to fit the occasion. Hopefully more about this story will come to light when the cops get sick of looking for invisible assailants and decide to turn up the heat on the guardsman for making false statements.

It's not impossible that his account was accurate, but it seems improbable to me...

Though the victim is black and the attackers were white, Troyer said detectives do not believe race was a motive for the assault.

Source

So even though they don't have the attackers, they believe they know the motive?

Witness Claims Guardsman Attack Not What It Seems
KIROtv.com, WA - Aug 31, 2006
... We're not saying that it didn't happen but we are definitely going to take a look at some inconsistencies,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff ...

Google Cache - Story unavailable.

Something STILL isn't right about this story...

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Seriously, they changed the whole article.

I went back to re-read it just in case I'd misinterpreted the article (which is entirely possible) and now the whole article has been changed to a followup.

What the hell??? If anyone has the original article link, I'd like to re-read it. I seem to recall it was either stated or heavily implied in the article that the attackers were anti-war activists, but I would really like to re-read it before I make that kind of an assertion. If I was wrongly assuming, then I apologize.

Unfortunately, the original article has disappeared from the site. Ergh...


Oh, and BH, on an unrelated note, yes, quite often motive is determined or at least given an educated guess before the suspects are apprehended in a crime. In order for a trial to take place you generally need an accuser, accusee, a broken law, a motive for breaking it, and means by which it was broken. However, motive is the most subjective of all these, and as such is used more as a method of drawing a line between point A and point B than it is to prove anything.

(edit: neccessary clarificiation and answering BH)



[edit on 9/6/2006 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibra
I seem to recall it was either stated or heavily implied in the article that the attackers were anti-war activists, but I would really like to re-read it before I make that kind of an assertion. If I was wrongly assuming, then I apologize.

Yeah, I'd like to see it, too. What's interesting is that as I was searching around today, I found some other people talking about this story and they were also saying "anti-war activist", so I find it very possible that the first article did say that and someone jumped in and corrected it.

(Sorry if I seemed to jump on you about it, but I'm sure you can see my point. )

And no one else seems to be covering it. Hmmm...

Oh, and BH, on an unrelated note, yes, quite often motive is determined or at least given an educated guess before the suspects are apprehended in a crime.

Got it.

I still find it interesting that this wasn't mentioned in the first article, right? The race make-up of the alleged crime. Normally, the media would jump on the fact that it could have been a "hate-crime". They would have found a way to bring the race in because it's more dramatic. The fact that they concentrated instead on who had the uniform is interesting to me.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(Sorry if I seemed to jump on you about it, but I'm sure you can see my point.

)

Not at all, m8. It's a fair cop. I have misinterpreted things before, and am only too happy to admit it when it happens, which it could have in this case.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And no one else seems to be covering it. Hmmm...

Prolly didn't get high enough ratings.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I still find it interesting that this wasn't mentioned in the first article, right? The race make-up of the alleged crime. Normally, the media would jump on the fact that it could have been a "hate-crime". They would have found a way to bring the race in because it's more dramatic. The fact that they concentrated instead on who had the uniform is interesting to me.

I think maybe because if it had been a hate crime, there logically would have been a few racial ephithets thrown in, or something. But the victim didn't appear to recount any details that could have pointed to hate crime other than the racial differences of the perps and the guardsman.

Or maybe it -was- a hate crime, but one of ideology, rather than of color. Seattle is pretty metropolitan, racially, but is pretty liberally rarified to the extreme left, politically. I'm not sure if the same can be said for Parkland though. I mean, one state over in Idaho you've got White Supremecists bordering the whole road from Snoqualamie, Washington, to Mizoola, Montana. So again, it's not entirely impossible that it -was- racially motivated either.

I dunno man. Hopefully the original article can be found.

I remember reading the original article, and it clearly implied these were "anti-war activists".

Probably now that doesn't appear to be the case, the source has modified the story in order to avoid embarassment.