Cindy Sheehan ends protest

Byrnzie wrote:

Please explain how her son's name has been disgraced. Her son had a mother with principles who stood up for what she believed in. Perhaps you'd prefer a nation of servile morons, who are happy to continue watching their sons and daughters die in this bullshit war that is benefiting nobody but a handful of rich and powerful liars, and swindlers?

It's not that black and white. Her son served in the military, a voluntary military and gave his life. And instead of respecting his wish to serve, his mom is making a mockery out of it. I don't think this is something you are going to understand... no offense. Sheehan's actions were out of anger and pain, and she did nothing to honor her son's name.

jlew24asu wrote:

but it is the point. your example was trying to prove america isnt free. you failed miserably.

Actually, my example was trying to prove that "freedom" is simply a word. Like many words, it has different definitions.

jlew24asu wrote:

this makes no sense.

Sorry if I'm speaking over your head; I am a rather precocious 9 year old, after all.

Let's break it down. You said that the insurgents in Iraq cannot be called freedom fighters, seemingly because they aren't fighting for freedom. By this, I assume you mean the freedom to do, i.e. freedom of action. But there is also the concept of freedom from, i.e freedom from kings, freedom from war, freedom from outside influence, freedom from.....whatever. Cindy Sheehan was obviously, to me at least, implying that the term "freedom fighters" refers to people fighting for freedom from outside influence - the same implication Ronald Reagan made when he called them freedom fighters (only that time it was freedom from the Soviet Union). So, why is it incorrect for Sheehan to use the Reagan definition of freedom fighters?

Drew263 wrote:

I wonder if she's bought her son a tombstone yet with the $250k she got from the gov't?

For the first year atleast..she hadn't. She's disgusting and giving people that are protesting with true intentions a bad name.

http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/06/05/cindy-sheehan-snopes-and-the-tombstone-and-one-father-who-made-a-different-choice/

bgivens33 wrote:

I can't help to think that she has disgraced her son's name. It tears me apart to think after that kid got killed in combat he is more famous for his mother than his service. If I ever get killed in combat I hope my parents have enough sense NEVER to do something like that. She does make some valid points... especially this one

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months"

But I am glad to see her go, the only thing she was doing was defacing her son's name. He signed up, it was not like he was drafted.

wow. wow. she blames bush for the death of her son. she wants to make it known so others don't let bush kill their kids. how is that defacing her son?

don't gimme no wrote:

wow. wow. she blames bush for the death of her son. she wants to make it known so others don't let bush kill their kids. how is that defacing her son?

Again, as I stated earlier this one is hard to tell someone about... you either understand it or you don't. Her son choose to join the army and he knew the risks. She wasn't very vocal about the war before her son died, just after. To me that loses lots of credibility. She didn't even put up a tombstone on his grave until a few weeks ago. I could just imagine having a friend killed in service and seeing his mom basically go crazy in protest, my first thought would be she is doing nothing to honor him. Her acts just come off as extremely selfish, she is saying her son basically died in vain. How is that NOT defacing her son?

RainDog wrote:

So forget about Ronald Reagan. Are you saying that someone fighting for freedom from outside influence cannot be considered a freedom fighter?

Except that's not what a great many of the insurgents in Iraq are doing.
They are taking advantage of the U.S. presence to carry out sectarian violence, settle old scores, strengthen their own power base ... It hasn't been about fighting the Americans for a very long time.

reborncareerist wrote:

Agreed. Anyone who uses the tactics that are routinely used in Iraq does not deserve to hide behind the term "freedom fighter". "Sectarian death warrior" might work better, except it sounds like something from a bad manga film. As might, you know, "terrorist". I think we'll just use that one.

So I'll ask you the same question. Are you saying that someone fighting for freedom from outside influence cannot be considered a freedom fighter? Is it because the term "freedom fighter" implies something positive? Because as I see it, it's a neutral term.

jlew24asu wrote:

we are talking about terrorists right? then no

Do you have a definition for terrorist?

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

That just makes me sad....to the point where i want to cry on the inside. How did we get to this point as humans where we don't care about our family as a standpoint from the human race, where everyone has to point and call names, and everything has to be "the good side" or "the bad side?"

:(