The anti-war protests seemed to be mostly peaceful, except for an incident where a wounded soldier who was countering the protest was spit at by anti-war protesters. The soldier was on crutches and had lost his right leg in Iraq. He was defending the goals of the war. And he spit back at the protester.
Also during the protest on our Capitol many confronted police, possibly trying to get the police to react. They spraypainted on the steps of the Capitol anarchist symbols along with phrases, "this is our capitol building."
Rocks were even thrown at a recruiting center.
The NY Times quoted a protester, “Cheney says it will be a 50-year war,” said Annie Yanowitz, “I find that totally inappropriate that our children may grow up with this war continuing."
There are a few issues here. First there were veterens on both sides of the protest. But these protesters have the wrong idea. They may be united in that they don't want the war but they don't seem to be united in much else.
A soldier being spit on is reminiscent of the Vietnam war era.
Second, if it is "your capitol" then why spray paint it? Protest, but remain respectful. Defacing "my Capitol" is sick. And if you agree please add.
Thirdly, the reason we are fighting over there is because we need to take charge of this disaster that has been the middle east for a long time before it escalates worse. We want to solve this problem before it reaches our children or our grandchildren.
Also, this ideology that we have to be attacked before we do anything is crazy. Lets look at history. We must be able to see strikes BEFORE they happen. WWII could have been averted. We saw anti-US sentiment and aggressive behavior in Japan and Germany before they attacked us.
I believe the United States is the best and most noble country in the world. Mr. Sean Penn, who was at the protest, said that Iran should be able to have nucs because we have them. Mr. Penn, we are not Iran and are not compairable with them.
History will look back at this with kinder eyes. It is a tough time, no doubt. Looking back, maybe we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. But we are there now and have an obligation to ourselves and Iraqis to stay and help them stabilize. Abraham Lincoln must have had the worst public opinion polls. He tore a country apart and was assassinated for his bravery to not follow public opinion and stand idle in a disaster, but to do what is right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Hooah.
I am disgusted with the behavior the article mentioned; whenever I can, I tell those who see fit to thank me for my service, that some of those who walked before us got spit on and had rocks thrown at them... never in a million years would I guess that anything remotely close to that would happen again in my lifetime. The spitting may have been based on an unknown altercation, but throwing rocks at a recruiting station? The whole "love the troops by hating the war" idea sounds like it's crumbling apart.
I don't know about everything else, but treating soldiers like that is wrong. People may not agree with the war in Iraq but the people to blame aren't necessarily the soldiers. They're just fighting for their country, even if it may not necessarily be right.
I'm not sure about the rest, but oh well.
>A soldier being spit on is reminiscent of the Vietnam war era.
Two problems with this. 1. No one was spit on, the single protester spit on the ground. Still a disrespectful and childish action, but not quite the same thing. 2. There is no documented evidence that any soldiers were spit on during the Vietnam era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
>he spitting may have been based on an unknown altercation, but throwing rocks at a recruiting station?
I missed the report on this, where was it?
>The whole "love the troops by hating the war" idea sounds like it's crumbling apart.
Dan, this is terrible logic. I know you can do better than this. In addition to the anecdotal evidence fallacy, you commit the does not follow and slippery slope fallacies.
The actions in the article were committed by anarchists and extremists, who, if completely totaled up are less than 1/10th of 1% of Americans. Somewhere over 50% of Americans oppose the war and nearly 99% of Americans say they support the troops. You take the actions of a few extremist idiots and then try to exaggerate them to everyone else. It doesn't work that way.
oops. I said "spit at" in the first paragraph. The second time I said "spit on"..i was referring to an idea. But I probably should have just said "at". haha
Well, I don't know of any cases. I've always thought it happened. That guy's book doesn't really disprove it. But now I'll have to search for that evidence. Maybe I did just got it from movies.
But...
Maybe it is irrelevent if anyone was actually spit on or not during Vietnam because many people today believe that soldiers were. What do you think?
Also, that guy's book has a political agenda. And, it's obvious. So, just cause he says that doesn't mean it's true.
What's with him saying that PTSD is something made up?
He says PTSD was made up during the Vietnam war by Republican policy makers trying to disprove ex-army anti-war protesters. That's a little out there. PTSD is an actual thing that people go through.
It was more commonly called "shell-shock" before Vietnam.
We had a briefing on it at our National Guard unit last month.
>"I missed the report on this, where was it?"
"Rocks were even thrown at a recruiting center"
>I do know that a group of soldiers were received at an airport by rock-throwing protesters back then, so I would assume spitting wouldn't have been crossing the line for them had any soldiers gotten in range. I am also inclined to doubt the veracity of that book, since I know victims of war-related PTSD personally.
>I don't doubt that plenty of people DO support the troops and DO hate the war, but in my opinion some of them are only tarnishing their own argument by participating in such an event. For example you have the lady quoted in the 1st post, Annie Yanowitz, talking about "the children" while right behind her vets are spit *at* and anarchy symbols are spray-painted. If she wants me to take anything she has to say seriously she can't let those kinds of people be included in her ideology group- either move and do a separate protest without them, get everyone else to ask them to leave, or walk away when extremism starts to take place. If one of those is not done, I have no way to know wether or not she actually supports that, and the "bad group" successfully alters the voice of the whole protest.
I would also suggest not taking the book as the gospel truth, particularly since critical thinking wouldn't suggest you do so, but in the absence of any study of the issue beyond this one, this is the best available evidence.
>That guy's book doesn't really disprove it.
Nobody's book proves or disproves anything. Sources "provide evidence for" or "provide evidence against." We never have 100% of the information, so we can't prove or disprove something completely. I would actually be shocked if not of the protesters ever spat on a soldier. It's just that the image is widely accepted as a common occurence, which doesn't match the available evidence.
I think it does make a difference whether or not the spitting actually occurred, otherwise it is the straw man fallacy. If I accused you of murder and a lot of people believed it, that wouldn't make it right -- the facts do matter.
As for the PTSD part of the book, I would agree that he is wrong on that, since the scientific research elsewhere clearly documents this problem. But just because one part of the book is misguided or incorrect doesn't mean the other part is, each has to be taken separately.
>Also, that guy's book has a political agenda. And, it's obvious. So, just cause he says that doesn't mean it's true.
Everybody has an agenda, whether they admit or know, or even whether they know it or not. So, just because he says that doesn't mean its true, but just because he has an agenda doesn't mean it isn't true. His personal feelings or motives aren't particularly relevant, the evidence is all that matters. Having not seen the evidence, I can't verify or deny it personally, although the book is widely cited.
As for the rock-throwing, I was just wondering the source on it, since I hadn't heard about that and it wasn't in the linked articles.
>since I know victims of war-related PTSD personally.
While I agree with you on the validity of PTSD claims (since the evidence clearly backs it up), you personally knowing someone who has this diagnosis is merely anecdotal evidence. And unless you have personally examined the patient and have a degree in a related field, you can't verify such a thing. The evidence supports your claim, so don't back it up with logical fallacies.
As you surely know, freedom of assembley is protected, so Yanowitz can't tell others to leave in any way they have to obey. And she and her group leave, where do you think the media coverage goes? With her or staying with the nutjobs? The whole point of a protest is to obtain sympathetic media coverage in order to sway people's opinions. Obviously, she should denounce these people, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are of different ideologies. I doubt seriously that Yanowitz is an anarchist.
>As for the rock-throwing, I was just wondering the source on it, since I hadn't heard about that and it wasn't in the linked articles.
Ahh I see, I read it in the original post as if it were part of a larger quote, not the blogger's words; I don't know where it came from beyond that.
>The evidence supports your claim, so don't back it up with logical fallacies
I wasn't attempting to back up the existance of PTSD, I believe that burden of proof isn't on me (and there appears to be a consensus as far as this blog is concerned, anyway). Since there's slim to no chance of me bothering to read the book to debunk claims I already know to be false, I was just setting the groundwork for anyone reading who doesn't know about PTSD. If they for whatever reason thought PTSD was diagnosed rarely or not at all since the 70's, they might not see such a large tarnishing of credibility in the author, or even pick up the book and believe it.
>As you surely know, freedom of assembley is protected, so Yanowitz can't tell others to leave in any way they have to obey.
Freedom of assembly has nothing to do with this case, freedom only protects against someone using their political power to stop you. You don't have the right to not be harrased or heckled or asked to leave just because you're protesting. In fact someone is also not likely going to be successfully sued or prosecuted for theft of a spray-paint can if they can claim they stopped an act of vandalism, adding another weapon to their potential arsenal. So *if* the overwhelming majority of the crowd were far from those extremes, they should have been able to distance themselves from criminality and disrespect towards soldiers.
>And she and her group leave, where do you think the media coverage goes? With her or staying with the nutjobs?
If what you said is true, and the overwhelming majority were far from those extremists pointed out, the media would likely either follow the protest or split it's assets to cover a protest, and a small group of vandals to small to be considered a newsworthy demonstration. Yanowitz should really run into problems only if the extreme group is larger than you thought. It may have gone either way, an been a bad group or a mostly good but apathetic group, but either way they failed to make me take them seriously.
>The whole point of a protest is to obtain sympathetic media coverage
I'd like to think spit and spraypaint are somewhat exclusive of sympathy.
>I wasn't attempting to back up the existance of PTSD
Maybe not intentionally, but that is the way it comes across -- "I think he's wrong because I know somebody who has it."
>I believe that burden of proof isn't on me
You are correct.
>they might not see such a large tarnishing of credibility in the author
This does not follow, it's ad ad hominem statement. No matter what someone says, that doesn't discount other things they might say.
Re-read what I said:
>so Yanowitz can't tell others to leave in any way they have to obey.
She can say negative things to these people all she wants, but it carries no weight. Why waste one's time doing something which will lead to a confrontation and have no positive effect. Generally speaking, the best way to deal with morons is to ignore t hem.
>the media would likely either follow the protest or split it's assets to cover a protest
This goes against any media policy or academic study I've ever seen. It's unlikely any media outlet would've had multiple reporters on scene and reporters, by definition, stick with the strangest story -- the one where there is the most chance of violence, arrest or crime.
>It may have gone either way, an been a bad group or a mostly good but apathetic group, but either way they failed to make me take them seriously.
I have a feeling, though, that nothing any of these people did would've made you take them seriously...
>I'd like to think spit and spraypaint are somewhat exclusive of sympathy.
The anarchists weren't who I was referring to, I was referring to the legal protesters. Anarchists don't care about media coverage.
>This goes against any media policy or academic study I've ever seen. It's unlikely any media outlet would've had multiple reporters on scene and reporters, by definition, stick with the strangest story -- the one where there is the most chance of violence, arrest or crime.
By this logic, any random serious crime or bizarre event going on at the time will preclude media coverage of a protest. If you really get the vast majority of masses away from the Anarchists you speak of, the media doesn't have to choose between a peaceful protest and a bad one, they instead have a peaceful protest and some vandals, a plausably unrelated event.
>I have a feeling, though, that nothing any of these people did would've made you take them seriously...
Lol... well, that's not really true, I may disagree to the last breath anyway, but I'll at least pay them proper attention for a peaceful and respectful demonstration. In my opinion they just have to realize that putting themselves under the spotlight means putting themselves under the microscope as well. If they raise too many 'red flags' their voice is heard with a prejudiced set of ears.
>By this logic, any random serious crime or bizarre event going on at the time will preclude media coverage of a protest.
As long as they don't have resources to cover both, yes.
>In my opinion they just have to realize that putting themselves under the spotlight means putting themselves under the microscope as well. If they raise too many 'red flags' their voice is heard with a prejudiced set of ears.
Sure, just don't try to pain them all with the same brush. Many mainstream Americans oppose the war and some are willing to protest it. No mainstream Americans believe in anarchy.
>As long as they don't have resources to cover both, yes.
But I think history has shown here that they generally do manage to have enough; it won't matter if there's a prison break, three murders, an escaped rhino from the zoo, and a large protest all on the same day, the major city's news at 10 is gonna get to the protest, and probably throw in the waterskiing squirrel and mating pandas for good measure.
>But I think history has shown here that they generally do manage to have enough
I'm not sure there's much evidence to back that up.
>throw in the waterskiing squirrel and mating pandas for good measure.
Those things are, of course, pre-taped.
>I'm not sure there's much evidence to back that up.
Of course not, but since it's assumed by society that a large political demonstration will garner media attention, and half a dozen acts of vandalism usually doesn't make the news, the burden of proof is on you to provide contradicting evidence.
You're misunderstanding the burden of proof fallacy. It has absolutely nothing to do with what most people think or public opinion, it is solely based on evidence. The burden of proof does not lay in the person who is not in the majority of public opinion, it lies with the person who is in opposition to the preponderance of the evidence.
I'm not even sure that society would assume a demonstration would get media attention. Anecdotally, most demonstrations I'm aware of don't get much media coverage, unless they are massive (tens of thousands), violent or in New York or DC.
>half a dozen acts of vandalism usually doesn't make the news
Run-of-the mill vandalism? No. The spraypainting of anarchist symbols on the capitol steps? I would imagine that would make the news 100% of the time it happens.
Post a Comment