Did You Here About This?

[Larkinn]

Yup, it sure is BIG, unsubstantiated leap to assume that one that hates the military is some how NOT an anti war protestor. As usual you got caught making shit up and are now trying to obfusicate the issue with a lot of bullshit.

Yes, actually it IS a BIG, unsubstantiated leap to assume that one hates the military is somehow NOT an anti-war protestor. There are numerous reasons one could hate the military which would have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Sorry, but it wasn't me who got caught making shit up. Its you and others who are blind like you who make bullshit assumptions like this.

so your therory is the dude was pro war but anti military?

I have no idea what his thoughts were on the war. Nor does anyone else.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I don't know if anyone posted what happened in Portland back in March so here's a photo:

"Die Die GI, In Iraq you're going to die"

"It's not just Bush but the troops too"

NeoCons on every message board it seems, love these photos.


One small problem: these aren't liberals. They're Anarchists. See the universal anarchy symbol, and the black clothes? Anarchists are extreme rightwingers, on the political spectrum.

Anybody who is remotely familiar with teenagers these days, knows what type of kids these are: disaffected, alienated punks looking to get some attention. That's exactly what these punk kids did this for.

 

[Edward]

Maybe the MSM didn't report that the guy was against the Iraq war because there is absolutely NO evidence that he was?

More unsubstantiated bullshit, that you guys are happy to believe because it slanders the left.

The story on July 5th was one day after the incident and reported the details of the shooting and even made it a point to state that the police had not yet determined whether the shooter and the victim knew each other. This story reported the known facts at the time it was printed. What the motive of the person was may not be determined for quite some time. It is rash to rush to judgment as to a motive when there is no evidence to support such a judgment. You are correct to point out that it is unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

[Edward]

So your "evidence" consists of someone calling him anti-war?

And its obviously an isolated act. What are you some sort of conspiracy theorist nutter?

Evidence must be verified and an investigation conducted. The opinion of the victim's family and friend's do not count as evidence of motive or the state of mind of the shooter. I know RSR would like this to be the case yet we should wait for the investigation to be completed before we jump to conclusions. We simply have to look at how quickly people rushed to judgment on the Duke LaCrosse players to know how fool-hardy it is to rush to judgment. It seems to me that this is a favorite of conservatives who also rushed to judgment in deciding to invade Iraq.

 

[uscitizen]

The guy had mental problems so he clearly was a bush supporter.

 

[Edward]

Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier.

Citing letters based on a blog as evidence of someone's motive in shooting someone is idiotic. When the police determine the motive of the shooter and decide on what course of action to take then we can discuss the reliability and veracity of the letters in question, their souce, who wrote them, when they were written and the state of the mind of the writer and to determine if the writer is the same person as the shooter. Until then you are citing unreliable information and expecting everyone to jump on it.

 

[Edward]

You have evidence he was not part of the anti-war movement? That he hated the military but had no feelings at all about the war or belonged to or was part of the Anti-war movement? You can substantiate that he ONLY did what he did because of an unreasoning hatred of the military for no reason involving the war?

I am sure Larkinn does not intend to prove negatives instead it is incumbent upon RSR and anyone else including you to prove a positive which is that this man was an anti-war protestor in addition to be anti-military. It is upon you to substantiate that his "unreasoning hatred of the military" actually existed and that the "reason involved the war." So I suggest you learn some common sense before making stupid assertions about how others are supposed to prove that someone didn't think something when in fact RSR and you are the ones claiming he did.

 

[Edward]

Nope. Nor did I claim that he was not anti-war. All I did was attack other peoples unsubstantiated claims that he was anti-war.

Interesting that you feel the need to let them go when they make claims way past their evidence, but when I attack those claims you falsely assume I am claiming the opposite is true. Biased much?

Of course he is biased. He is claiming that you need to prove a negative because he has a reason for wanting this guy to be anti-war and that is simply outrageous. I wouldn't want this idiot serving on a jury or he would expect the defense to prove that the defendant didn't have a motive and that what the prosecution advances as a motive is not true.

 

[Edward]

Yup, it sure is BIG, unsubstantiated leap to assume that one that hates the military is some how NOT an anti war protestor. As usual you got caught making shit up and are now trying to obfusicate the issue with a lot of bullshit.

He didn't make anything up. Instead he expects RSR, and anyone else to prove that this man is a) anti-military and b) anti-war. First, I have not yet seen any proof offered that this man was in fact anti-military let alone anti-war. RSR has made a reference to suicide letters that the shooter left yet he has not given any evidence to support his claim as to their contents or their author. Whether these letters in fact exist has not been shown, their contents not provided, or substantiated and yet you are making the claim that the shooter is anti-military and anti-war. Second, it is a leap to claim that someone who is anti-military is therefore anti-war. The two are not necessarily the same. This man is apparently not anti-violence or he would not have shot this man therefore it makes no sense to make a claim that he is anti-war. In fact, he may in fact have considered himself at war with the military. So you can't make the leap between him being anti-military and anti-war since it is apparent that there is a missing link between these and yet you attempt to make the claim that he was anti-Iraq war as well. I suggest you try using some common sense and stop with the misdirections already and prove that this man is anti-military, anti-war and/or anti-Iraq war and stop trying to make others prove a negative asshole.

 

[Edward]

Yes, actually it IS a BIG, unsubstantiated leap to assume that one hates the military is somehow NOT an anti-war protestor. There are numerous reasons one could hate the military which would have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

After course there are. He could hate the military because his brother died in the military, or his father lost a leg in Vietnam. He could hate the military as a result of some right-wing ideology. He could hate the military because his sister was ran over by a National Guard jeep on its way to a drill. He could hate the military because he has seen to many movies where the military is shown in a negative image or because a person in the military gave him the middle finger. We don't know the state of mind of this man but apparently RSR and RetiredGySgt do know. I only wish I had their telepathic abilities but alas I do not. Second, my suggestion would be for you not to automatically accept that this man was anti-military. No evidence has been given here that he is in fact even anti-military let along anti-war or against the Iraq war. If you have some reason to believe otherwise other then the flimsy references that RSR has made to suicide letters I would love to know so I can come to the same conclusion.

Sorry, but it wasn't me who got caught making shit up. Its you and others who are blind like you who make bullshit assumptions like this.

You are right about that. It is ironic that people make a quick judgment that the shooter was anti-military followed an assumption that he is anti-war and therefore anti-Iraq war when common sense would not support this judgment.

I have no idea what his thoughts were on the war. Nor does anyone else.

You forget who you are talking to. These people are quick to make judgments and the consequences be damned. It is good to see that people like you still exist and we can only pray that at least one person of like character is on every jury or people like RSR and RetiredGySgt would screw up our justice system just like they have screwed up our political system.

 

[red states rule]

As for your picture, all I can say is that some people in the left behave badly. Some people in the right behave badly.

News columns sometimes omit what they consider to be insignificant. What was his race? Where was he born? What color were his eyes? What did he have for breakfast?

You conveniently left out the fact that Durbin apologized until I practically had to drag it out of you. I guess that you did not consider his apology significant.

It is nice to see the libs squirm when their true feelings about the war, and the US military, are exposed to the light of day

You can keep whining about poor Sen Turbin stinking his foot in his mouth - and then being held acountable for his actions

The kook left is driving the Dem party over the cliff - along with their poll numbers

 

[red states rule]

And you (and some other idiots) made a jump from being anti-military to anti-war.

They are one in the same. What other purpose do we have the US Military for?

Protecting the US and killing the enemy pretty well sums up their job. The kook left sees the US military as a waste of money - they would rather have it for social programs

 

[red states rule]

Nope. Nor did I claim that he was not anti-war. All I did was attack other peoples unsubstantiated claims that he was anti-war.

Interesting that you feel the need to let them go when they make claims way past their evidence, but when I attack those claims you falsely assume I am claiming the opposite is true. Biased much?

So the killers letter left behind is not good evidence for you?

 

[Edward]

So the killers letter left behind is not good evidence for you?

Simply stating that there were letters is not sufficient evidence of anything. Until and if you can prove the contents of the letter all we know for sure is that he had issues with the government. Whether he specifically targeted this soldier is unknown, and whether he took issue with the military or with the war is not known. You have not demonstrated that his thoughts were a result of the war. From the reports he had been arrested prior to this time especially for drugs. It may well be that he was angry at the government in part for this, angry at the military (which you have not proven) because he sees them as a personification of the government. We know from reports that he attempted to run down some police officers with his vehicles so it is apparent that his issues with the government may not be as much with the military as they are with his own past. You jump to conclusions based on a few blogs, and comments and yet you have not provided the content of these letters. It seems to me that you apply a different standard when it is something you agree with then you do when you disagree with it. If someone tried to say something bad about Bush and Cheney based on such flimsy evidence you would say "give me the letters" as has been said about Dick Cheney and the comments of his office about not being a part of the executive branch. Here is mine:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19644931/
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/09/airman.html

 

[red states rule]

Simply stating that there were letters is not sufficient evidence of anything. Until and if you can prove the contents of the letter all we know for sure is that he had issues with the government. Whether he specifically targeted this soldier is unknown, and whether he took issue with the military or with the war is not known. You have not demonstrated that his thoughts were a result of the war. From the reports he had been arrested prior to this time especially for drugs. It may well be that he was angry at the government in part for this, angry at the military (which you have not proven) because he sees them as a personification of the government. We know from reports that he attempted to run down some police officers with his vehicles so it is apparent that his issues with the government may not be as much with the military as they are with his own past. You jump to conclusions based on a few blogs, and comments and yet you have not provided the content of these letters. It seems to me that you apply a different standard when it is something you agree with then you do when you disagree with it. If someone tried to say something bad about Bush and Cheney based on such flimsy evidence you would say "give me the letters" as has been said about Dick Cheney and the comments of his office about not being a part of the executive branch. Here is mine:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19644931/

I wonder if kook libs like you would be so "tolerant" if a member of the US military had shot a anti war peace nik

The fact is, the creep did leave the note, and he was out to kill a member of the US military

 

[Edward]

I wonder if kook libs like you would be so "tolerant" if a member of the US military had shot a anti war peace nik

The fact is, the creep did leave the note, and he was out to kill a member of the US military

As I have noted your story is not supported by the evidence. You claim he wrote the letters, and therefore he is anti-military but the fact remains that this isn't supported by what has been released to the media by authorities. Let me quote from an article on this very subject to demonstrate my point. The article states, "Burlington County and Willingboro authorities said yesterday they may never reveal the text of the Marren notes, but that its content did not support the picture presented by bloggers."

Here we have the local authorities saying that the text of the letters do not support the picture that Marren was anti-military or anti-war. The article goes on to describe the authorities as saying "Investigators point out that the 22-year-old Schrieken did not know the gunman, was not in uniform at the time of the incident, and would not have been an obvious target for someone trying to kill a soldier." It's clear based on what the authorities are saying that Marren did not know the victim and had no way of knowing that he was a soldier. So how do you arrive at your conclusion that he is anti-war let alone anti-military? The answer to that is you connect un-related items to create an image that does not exist. Give me a single source where either the police or anyone involved in this incident has said that this man was anti-military or anti-war jackass. What is even more interesting is the fact that the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office has stated: "No motive has been determined," and "they [investigators] are still indicating that it was an act of random violence." This is as of now. They have yet to determine a motive and yet you seem to think that these letters provide a motive for the shooting even though investigators have not arrived at the same conclusion. You should be ashamed of yourself but I suspect you spend to much time on the internet reading blogs and posting to forums to form an intelligent understanding of the facts of an incident instead preferring some interpretation by a blogger who has not had access to the same information as the police.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070718_Airmans_shooting__Antiwar_passion_.html

 

[Edward]

The fact is, the creep did leave the note, and he was out to kill a member of the US military

Where the hell you get your facts from is beyond me since he didn't know the victim and the victim was not in uniform and Marren had no way of knowing that he was a soldier nor is there any evidence which would indicate that Marren was anti-military, or anti-war. So how you arrive at him being out to kill a member of the U.S. military is beyond me since it isn't supported by any of the facts. If it is supported by the facts please provide them so we can all come to the same conclusion as you. The contents of the letter according to the authorities do not support the claim that he was anti-military or anti-war and in fact all credible sources indicate that the letters were suicide notes of a general nature and that there were references in it to the government and some source indicate that he had issues with the government and wanted to make a statement. The nature of his issues with the government are not known. It could be that he has issues with the local government arresting his ass for using drugs. This source of information about his issues with the government makes no reference either to the military or to the war ans is based on a second hand account from the shooters aunt who had been told by the shooters mother of the letters and how they expressed anger at the government. From this single statement you and other idiots derive that he was anti-military and anti-war and intended to kill a soldier. I think we are going to find out soon enough, that is when the investigation is complete, just how idiotic you are.

 

[red states rule]

Media Silence on Antiwar Violence (updated)
Patrick Poole

An Air Force airman was shot by antiwar protestor on July 4th, but the establishment media and liberal blogs yawn. Airman Jonathan Schrieken, 22, is fighting for his life after being shot in the heart by a gunman intending to make an antiwar statement, while standing outside his home near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey on July 4th. Airman Schrieken, a loadmaster with the 6th Airlift Squadron based at McGuire, remains in critical condition at a Camden, New Jersey hospital.

The antiwar gunman, Matthew J. Marren, killed himself after shooting Schrieken and left two suicide notes explaining that he was "mad at the government".


Meanwhile, the establishment media ignores the story. The initial Associated Press report on the incident never mentioned Marren's motive for shooting Schrieken. The first media outlet to discuss Marren's intent to make an antiwar statement on the 4th of July by killing a member of our military was Phillyburbs.com, and the story has only gained national attention after a post over the weekend at LittleGreenFootballs.com.

If Airman Schrieken had been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month. But since Schrieken is serving in the military, even his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, has ignored this story.

It is also worth noting that Marren was merely following the logic of the anti-war movement's standard public rhetoric. Their language is laced with suggestive undertones justifying attacks against our military, calling our armed forces fighting the War on Terror "baby-killers", constantly invoking the specter of Abu Ghraib, and citing their grossly inflated statistics of civilians accidentally killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such reckless and unbalanced rhetoric (they're not quite as adept at keeping statistics on those murdered by terrorists) fuels the hatred that drives someone like Marren to violence against a member of our own military.

Antiwar supporters will no doubt disclaim any responsibility for Marren's attack, but in any other circumstance involving someone engaged in a politically incorrect crime, Leftists would not hesitate to point their fingers at the conservative movement. One might recall the attack on "right-wing talk radio" following Matthew Shepherd's murder and Hillary Clinton's indictment of the same after the Oklahoma City bombing. Add to that the attacks by the ACLU and others on the pro-life movement after the shootings of two abortion doctors in the 1990s.

But now that someone has acted on the antiwar movement's anti-military rhetoric, don't expect to hear any apologies from Cindy Sheehan, International A.N.S.W.E.R., Daily Kos, or Rep. John Murtha. And certainly don't expect the establishment media to give this heart-rending story the coverage it deserves.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/media_silence_on_antiwar_viole.html

 

[Edward]

I shouldn't even take the time to respond to your cut and paste but I will do so to demonstrate how idiotic you are.

An Air Force airman was shot by antiwar protestor on July 4th, but the establishment media and liberal blogs yawn.

This statement is not supported by the facts or the evidence. Not a single credible source claims that this man was an anti-war protestor. There is no evidence to support this claim either from the media or from the authorities. In fact, the only support for this claim comes from a statement by the man's aunt about the contents of his suicide letters yet even her statement does not indicate that he was anti-military or anti-war instead it appears that he has issues with the government. His aunt does not say what his issues were nor has local authorities told us what his issues may be. We know he has had run in with the police and with local authorities in the past and was arrested.

Airman Jonathan Schrieken, 22, is fighting for his life after being shot in the heart by a gunman intending to make an antiwar statement, while standing outside his home near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey on July 4th. Airman Schrieken, a loadmaster with the 6th Airlift Squadron based at McGuire, remains in critical condition at a Camden, New Jersey hospital.

And yet, the local authorities still believe this was a "random act of violence" and had nothing to do with the fact that the victim was a soldier and the investigators have had no indications that he knew the victim and since the victim was not in uniform and there were at least five other people living in the residence his question regarding "do you live here" would indicate that he had no knowledge about his victim being a soldier. If he did know the victim was a soldier then he would have had no reason to ask him if he lived there which contradicts this claim.

The antiwar gunman, Matthew J. Marren, killed himself after shooting Schrieken and left two suicide notes explaining that he was "mad at the government".

This much is true according to one source and that source happens to be the victims aunt yet it does not say that he is mad at the federal government or at the military and no other source including local authorities indicate that he had issues with the military, the war or with the federal government and yet this hack arrives at the conclusion that he was anti-war based on the words of one person about the contents of the letter indicating him "being mad at the government."

Meanwhile, the establishment media ignores the story. The initial Associated Press report on the incident never mentioned Marren's motive for shooting Schrieken.

This is because it was only the day after the incident and the police had not yet determined a motive for the shooting and this fact was covered. After an interview with the shooters aunt it was reported that he had written suicide letters indicating that he was angry at the government and wanted to make a statement. At no time did the media not report the facts that were known and did so in a manner that most stories are covered even going so far as to report a statement from the aunt of the shooter regarding the contents of the letters.

The first media outlet to discuss Marren's intent to make an antiwar statement on the 4th of July by killing a member of our military was Phillyburbs.com, and the story has only gained national attention after a post over the weekend at LittleGreenFootballs.com.

People take a statement from an article and post an opinion online and from there the story takes on a life of its own. This guy didn't bother checking with local authorities because had he done so and been a legitimate reporter he would have noted the fact that they don't believe this shooting had anything to do with the fact that the victim was a soldier and no source including the aunt indicates that it does have anything to do with him being a soldier.

If Airman Schrieken had been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month. But since Schrieken is serving in the military, even his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, has ignored this story.

Actually, the Columbus Dispatch has several written several articles on the shooting and has covered the story but I suspect what this man means is that they aren't reporting the opinions of people based on news articles which is not supported by the local authorities. They aren't going to report that this man was an anti-war protestor who was out to kill a soldier when no source supports this even though a blogger decides to take several articles and create a fantasy as to the motive of the shooter. Since the local authorities still haven't determined a motive it makes no sense for the New York Times or CBS to cover it. What are they going to cover?

Will the story go something like: "Several bloggers have taken a few news articles and concluded that an anti-war protestor shot a soldier. It is true that the lcoal authorities do not believe that the shooter knew the victim and the victim was not in uniform but based on a statement from the shooters aunt about the shooters mother telling her that he left suicide notes expressing anter at the government we can safely conclude that he was an anti-war protestor out to kill a soldier even though local authorities believe otherwise. We do not intend to report the facts that are known and instead will ignore the statements of the authorities because a bunch of bloggers can read a newspaper and form an opinion. I am Katie Couric for CBS."

National news organizations aren't stupid enough to do that and I doubt very much that they spend any time on blogs reading what is posted in them but the local media is covering this story and if there was any evidence to support the claim that he was an anti-war protestor than an AP article would cover it and it would be picked up by the national news but as of right now all the information we have is that one man who was angry at the government, whether local or federal is unknown) shot a soldier he did not know and who was not in uniform and until the local authorities indicate that this incident was not simply a random act of violence the national news will not be reporting it regardless of what bloggers post but I suspect now that you idiots have made a big deal out of this that the national news is going to cover the fact that a bunch of bloggers have taken a story and made it into something that it isn't.

Antiwar supporters will no doubt disclaim any responsibility for Marren's attack, but in any other circumstance involving someone engaged in a politically incorrect crime, Leftists would not hesitate to point their fingers at the conservative movement. One might recall the attack on "right-wing talk radio" following Matthew Shepherd's murder and Hillary Clinton's indictment of the same after the Oklahoma City bombing. Add to that the attacks by the ACLU and others on the pro-life movement after the shootings of two abortion doctors in the 1990s.

Where this guy gets off making such statements which are contradicted by the authorities is beyond me but I don't doubt there are people like this out there since they post here often in the form of RSR, RetiredGySgt and CSM. Facts mean nothing to these people and they prefer to ignore the facts and to create fantasies. The only evidence to support this self-created motive is one single statement by the shooter's aunt about him "being angry at the government." There was no mention of the military or the war or why he was mad at the government. It may well be that he was mad at the local police and government because they arrested him in the past for drug use.

But now that someone has acted on the antiwar movement's anti-military rhetoric, don't expect to hear any apologies from Cindy Sheehan, International A.N.S.W.E.R., Daily Kos, or Rep. John Murtha. And certainly don't expect the establishment media to give this heart-rending story the coverage it deserves.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/media_silence_on_antiwar_viole.html

There is not a single reliable source that indicates that this man was against the war or even knew the victim was a soldier since the victim was not in uniform aand he did not know the victim nor is there any evidence that his motive was to kill a soldier. Also, local authorities disagree with this version of events instead having reason to believe it was a random act of violence and that this man happened to be the victim of a deranged man. Until we have some evidence that would indicate what his motive was we must rely on what the authorities have said and they have made it clear that they do not believe this man's motive had anything to do with the military or the war.

 

[red states rule]

Save time Eddie - just say how the poor man is now a victim of the right wing attack machine and he broke under the strain of having Bush as President