Did You Here About This?

[Edward]

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

I have no intention of saying this man is a victim since he shot another man and tried to kill him. This has nothing to do with the shooter and everything to do with the claims that he was an anti-war protestor and that he was out to kill a soldier when there is no evidence to support this claim. As of today the local authorities still do not believe the shooter knew the victim and had no way of knowing that he was a soldier. You choose to ignore these facts and to base your opinion on blogs, internet posts, and op-eds based on the contents of a single story quoting the second-hand account of the shooters aunt that his suicide notes expressed anger at the government yet no where in that article does it indicate that the man was angry at the military or was against the war. The local authorities have also indicated that they have no reason to believe that the man wanted to kill a soldier instead investigators believe that this was most likely a randon act of violence and until they are able to complete their investigation I am inclined to go with what they have said and with what has been reported instead of the opinion of someone like you who took the time to read an article and then post something online that was picked up by others and expanded upon.

 

[red states rule]

I have no intention of saying this man is a victim since he shot another man and tried to kill him. This has nothing to do with the shooter and everything to do with the claims that he was an anti-war protestor and that he was out to kill a soldier when there is no evidence to support this claim. As of today the local authorities still do not believe the shooter knew the victim and had no way of knowing that he was a soldier. You choose to ignore these facts and to base your opinion on blogs, internet posts, and op-eds based on the contents of a single story quoting the second-hand account of the shooters aunt that his suicide notes expressed anger at the government yet no where in that article does it indicate that the man was angry at the military or was against the war. The local authorities have also indicated that they have no reason to believe that the man wanted to kill a soldier instead investigators believe that this was most likely a randon act of violence and until they are able to complete their investigation I am inclined to go with what they have said and with what has been reported instead of the opinion of someone like you who took the time to read an article and then post something online that was picked up by others and expanded upon.

Eddie, the truth will set you free

Much like you you lied about the polls showing Dems sinking faster then Republicans - you are ignoring the facts about this story as well

 

[Larkinn]

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

Hating something and hating somethings purpose is two very different things.

And I know...the kook left would rather pump money into saving lives instead of killing people. Isn't that totally ridiculous?

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

And where in the note does it say he is anti-war?

 

[red states rule]

Hating something and hating somethings purpose is two very different things.

And I know...the kook left would rather pump money into saving lives instead of killing people. Isn't that totally ridiculous?



And where in the note does it say he is anti-war?

That is like syaing you support football players but hate the game of football. Libs have a long history of showing their contempt for the military - this is nothing new

The US is spending record amounts of money on the "poor" and it is still not enough

The contents of the note is in the link - if you would stop ignoring it you would know what is in it

 

[Edward]

Eddie, the truth will set you free

Much like you you lied about the polls showing Dems sinking faster then Republicans - you are ignoring the facts about this story as well

The facts speak for themselves. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that this man was anti-military or anti-war. The opinions of bloggers that he was in fact anti-war and anti-military ARE CONTRADICTED by the statements of LOCAL AUTHORITIES who do NOT believe he KNEW THE VICTIM, or KNEW THAT HE WAS A SOLDIER and ARE NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence other then THE SINGLE STATEMENT of his aunt that he was ANGRY AT THE GOVERNMENT with NO MENTION OF THE MILITARY OR THE WAR. As of yesterday Jack Smith, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office has said, "No motive has been determined," and "They [investigators] are still indicating that it was an act of random violence."

 

[red states rule]

The facts speak for themselves. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that this man was anti-military or anti-war. The opinions of bloggers that he was in fact anti-war and anti-military ARE CONTRADICTED by the statements of LOCAL AUTHORITIES who do NOT believe he KNEW THE VICTIM, or KNEW THAT HE WAS A SOLDIER and ARE NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence other then THE SINGLE STATEMENT of his aunt that he was ANGRY AT THE GOVERNMENT with NO MENTION OF THE MILITARY OR THE WAR. As of yesterday Jack Smith, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office has said, "No motive has been determined," and "They [investigators] are still indicating that it was an act of random violence."

The same "lack of evidence" you said did not exist about the Dems poll numbers?

Libs like you are such a joke. The truth is out there for all to see, and you think by saying it is not there - it will go away

 

[Larkinn]

That is like syaing you support football players but hate the game of football. Libs have a long history of showing their contempt for the military - this is nothing new

No, actually its not.

The US is spending record amounts of money on the "poor" and it is still not enough

And we are spending record amounts of money on the military, and it is still not enough.

The contents of the note is in the link - if you would stop ignoring it you would know what is in it

What link?

 

[red states rule]

No, actually its not.



And we are spending record amounts of money on the military, and it is still not enough.



What link?

Keep saying it does not exist

"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.


We are at war - so the military needs to be funded. Meanwhile you social programs are also getting funded


and another example of how the troops are viewed by the left

Iraq War Vets Are Armed, Hostage-Taking Bank Robbers in Spike TV Mini-Series
By Brent Baker | July 18, 2007 - 12:53 ET
Those who oppose the Iraq war are always adamant that they support the troops, but how do you characterize people who think it's good television programming to portray Iraq war veterans as violent criminals? This Sunday at 9pm EDT/PDT, the Spike TV cable channel, part of the CBS/Viacom empire, starts The Kill Point, a four-part, eight-hour mini-series “event” revolving around a group of Iraq war veterans who rob a bank and take hostages. John Leguizamo (IMDb bio page), “Dr. Victor Clemente” on NBC's ER, stars as the leader of the heavily-armed robbers and the Spike Web site for the show describes his character as a man who is “fighting his own personal demons from the Iraq war.” Spike TV, best known for incessant re-runs of CSI, will air The Kill Point in two-hour blocks over four successive Sundays, starting this Sunday, July 22.

From Spike TV's page on their mini-series:


Emmy Award-winning actor and Golden Globe nominee John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg star in Spike TV's new original scripted series, THE KILL POINT, an eight-hour event focusing on two men as they square off during a bank heist gone horribly wrong and the hostage negotiations that ensue. THE KILL POINT premieres on Spike TV with a two-hour event beginning Sunday, July 22 at 9:00-PM ET/PT.

John Leguizamo is "Mr. Wolf," the leader of a small group of military veterans who set out to rob a major bank in Pittsburgh. When things go awry, they're forced to take more than a dozen hostages from all walks of life, including a wealthy and powerful businessman's daughter. Suddenly, "Mr. Wolf" finds himself battling the police, the hostages and members of his own team while at the same time, fighting his own personal demons from the Iraq war and from his own war at home. Will he be sharp enough to hold it all together or lose control of the situation? And will he find redemption before it's too late -- and does he even care to?

On the opposite side of the perimeter is "Horst Cali," the Pittsburgh Police Department Hostage Negotiator, played by Donnie Wahlberg, who must go toe-to-toe with "Mr. Wolf." "Cali" must use his wit and negotiating skills, while managing his own personal issues, to manipulate the situation and convince Wolf to free the hostages before the FBI takes control, or worse.

With time of the essence and the uncertainty of the unfolding events, both men need to remain resourceful and collected or risk losing lives. THE KILL POINT reveals how the hostage takers leverage their situation and how the negotiator tries to unravel their plans. Which man will blink? Who will outsmart the other? Who will survive? It's a dangerous game of chess played out with human lives at stake.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14189

 

[Edward]

That is like syaing you support football players but hate the game of football. Libs have a long history of showing their contempt for the military - this is nothing new

The US is spending record amounts of money on the "poor" and it is still not enough

The contents of the note is in the link - if you would stop ignoring it you would know what is in it

You haven't provided any links with the content of the letters in it instead you have provided links to someone's opinion based on various news reports which isn't supported by the actual facts. Try this source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19644931/ since it reports the statement of the shooters aunt regarding the content of the letter but let's not forget that the local authorities still do not believe that the shooter knew the victim and since the victim was not in uniform he had no way to know that he was a soldier. How you go from a second-hand statement about him being angry at the government to him being anti-war is beyond me but it's exactly what bloggers have been doing for the last week. To this day the local authorities contradict your claim that he was an anti-war protestor or anti-military. It seems to me that you want to ignore the facts of this case and to accept the fantasy created by a handful of nuts like you who decided to post their opinions of this incident online based on a single statement by his aunt that the shooters mother said he wrote letters expressing anger at the government and then they combine this with the fact that the victim was a soldier and conclude that the shooter was anti-war when three major facts are ignored. The first is that he didn't know the victim, the second is that the victim was not in uniform and the third is that we do not know that the letters expressed anger about the war or about the federal government. Being angry at the government could have been a reference on the part of his mother to anger over being arrested and prosecuted by the county attorney for drugs. We simply do not know what the letters say but we do know what we do not know and that is we do not have any way of knowing that he was anti-war or anti-military based on the present information available and therefore those who claim that this is the case are doing so based on mere opinion and not fact.

 

[red states rule]

You haven't provided any links with the content of the letters in it instead you have provided links to someone's opinion based on various news reports which isn't supported by the actual facts.

Try this source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19644931/ since it reports the statement of the shooters aunt regarding the content of the letter but let's not forget that the local authorities still do not believe that the shooter knew the victim and since the victim was not in uniform he had no way to know that he was a soldier. How you go from a second-hand statement about him being angry at the government to him being anti-war is beyond me but it's exactly what bloggers have been doing for the last week. To this day the local authorities contradict your claim that he was an anti-war protestor or anti-military. It seems to me that you want to ignore the facts of this case and to accept the fantasy created by a handful of nuts like you who decided to post their opinions of this incident online based on a single statement by his aunt that the shooters mother said he wrote letters expressing anger at the government and then they combine this with the fact that the victim was a soldier and conclude that the shooter was anti-war when three major facts are ignored. The first is that he didn't know the victim, the second is that the victim was not in uniform and the third is that we do not know that the letters expressed anger about the war or about the federal government. Being angry at the government could have been a reference on the part of his mother to anger over being arrested and prosecuted by the county attorney for drugs.

Lame liberal spin to deflect attention from the facts

 

[Edward]

No, actually its not.



And we are spending record amounts of money on the military, and it is still not enough.



What link?

Here is a credible link where that quotes the source for this assertion. The source for this claim is the shooters aunt who quotes his mother as having said he wrote suicide notes expressing ANGER AT THE GOVERNMENT. From this single statement and the fact that the victim was a soldier is created a fantasy where the shooter was trying to kill a soldier and therefore was anti-military and hence anti-war. The fact that he did not know the victim and that the victim was not in unifrom are ignored because they do not serve their purpose and contradict any claim that this shooting was the result of anti-war feelings on the part of the shooter.

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

I would urge you not to be baited by this idiot. There is absolutely no proof that this man was anti-war or anti-military and the local authorities continue to state that no motive has been determined and contradict the claim made by people that he was an anti-war protestor. To read more on that subject you can visit the following link.

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

Doing so will allow you to see the whole timeline of how this story has developed when in reality it isn't supported by the facts, by credible news sources or by local authorities. I would urge you to take the time to read these two stories since they will help you to understand how these people have come to their conclusion and how it is based on faulty logic.

 

[red states rule]

Here is a credible link where that quotes the source for this assertion.

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

I would urge you not to be baited by this idiot. There is absolutely no proof that this man was anti-war or anti-military and the local authorities continue to state that no motive has been determined and contradict the claim made by people that he was an anti-war protestor. To read more on that subject you can visit the following link.

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

Doing so will allow you to see the whole timeline of how this story has developed when in reality it isn't supported by the facts, by credible news sources or by local authorities. I would urge you to take the time to read these two stories since they will help you to understand how these people have come to their conclusion and how it is based on faulty logic.

You are very good at ignoring things that go against your rants

MM Jr

 

[Edward]

Lame liberal spin to deflect attention from the facts

The facts speak for themself. No credible source claims that he was anti-military or anti-war instead one single person quotes the content of suicide letters that they have not read based on what they heard from the mother of the shooter as to their content and that quote is to the effect that the shooter was angry at the government. This source does not make any statement that he was angry at the military or about the war or that he was anti-military or anti-war. This is a conclusion drawn from the the statement of his aunt that he was angry at the government and from the fact that the victim was a soldier. The problem with this is that it is contradicted by the facts including statements by local authorities that he did not know the victim and that the victim was not in uniform and that he had no way of knowing that he was a soldier. I think I will rely on what local authorities say about this incident whether then the opinion of a handful of bloggers who have no first-hand knowledge of the events or the investigation. I am also more inclined to accept the actual news accounts of the incident instead of a op-ed version which attempts to analyze a handful of media reports and draw a conclusion based on two separate facts including the fact that the victim was a soldier and the fact that his aunt claims he wrote suicide letter express anger at the government especially when those who currently have the letters do not agree with the claim that the shooter was anti-military or anti-war and that this was not a motive for the shooting. You can call the facts spin all you want but you will not be able to provide a single credible source for your claim and will only be able to provide links to the blogs, posts or comments of people like you who have no first hand knowledge of the event and which are contradicted by local media reports and by the statements of authorities.

 

[red states rule]

The facts speak for themself. No credible source claims that he was anti-military or anti-war instead one single person quotes the content of suicide letters that they have not read based on what they heard from the mother of the shooter as to their content and that quote is to the effect that the shooter was angry at the government. This source does not make any statement that he was angry at the military or about the war or that he was anti-military or anti-war. This is a conclusion drawn from the the statement of his aunt that he was angry at the government and from the fact that the victim was a soldier. The problem with this is that it is contradicted by the facts including statements by local authorities that he did not know the victim and that the victim was not in uniform and that he had no way of knowing that he was a soldier. I think I will rely on what local authorities say about this incident whether then the opinion of a handful of bloggers who have no first-hand knowledge of the events or the investigation. I am also more inclined to accept the actual news accounts of the incident instead of a op-ed version which attempts to analyze a handful of media reports and draw a conclusion based on two separate facts including the fact that the victim was a soldier and the fact that his aunt claims he wrote suicide letter express anger at the government especially when those who currently have the letters do not agree with the claim that the shooter was anti-military or anti-war and that this was not a motive for the shooting. You can call the facts spin all you want but you will not be able to provide a single credible source for your claim and will only be able to provide links to the blogs, posts or comments of people like you who have no first hand knowledge of the event and which are contradicted by local media reports and by the statements of authorities.

It is funny to watch libs squirm when their fellow kooks openly show the hate and contempt they have for America and the US military

 

[Edward]

You are very good at ignoring things that go against your rants

MM Jr

I haven't ignored any of the facts but you have chosen to ignore the fact that as of yesterday the local authorities have clearly come out and said that they do not believe that this man was an anti-war protestor. In fact there words are: "No motive has been determined," and "they [investigators] are still indicating that it was an act of random violence." The same article quoting the local authorities also stated that "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" and that "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." This combined with the contents of the actual article quoting the second hand account of the shooters aunt regarding his mother stating that he wrote suicide letters expressing anger at the government would indicate that your claims are not supported by the facts. We can only go with what we know and what we know does not fit with what you are claiming. I haven't ignored anything you posted including the links and have read them and have seen the faulty logic and how these bloggers and op-ed writers draw their conclusions and I am shocked at how ludicrous their claim appears on face value. If you can GIVE ME ONE SINGLE SOURCE WHERE ANYONE HAS SAID HE WAS ANTI-MILITARY OR ANTI-WAR OR KNEW THAT THE VICTIM WAS A SOLDIER THEN DO SO BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRADICT WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED HERE. You may want to ignore the facts but I intend to continue to state the facts and wait for more information to be released before I make any further judgments.

 

[red states rule]

I haven't ignored any of the facts but you have chosen to ignore the fact that as of yesterday the local authorities have clearly come out and said that they do not believe that this man was an anti-war protestor. In fact there words are: "No motive has been determined," and "they [investigators] are still indicating that it was an act of random violence." The same article quoting the local authorities also stated that "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" and that "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." This combined with the contents of the actual article quoting the second hand account of the shooters aunt regarding his mother stating that he wrote suicide letters expressing anger at the government would indicate that your claims are not supported by the facts. We can only go with what we know and what we know does not fit with what you are claiming. I haven't ignored anything you posted including the links and have read them and have seen the faulty logic and how these bloggers and op-ed writers draw their conclusions and I am shocked at how ludicrous their claim appears on face value. If you can GIVE ME ONE SINGLE SOURCE WHERE ANYONE HAS SAID HE WAS ANTI-MILITARY OR ANTI-WAR OR KNEW THAT THE VICTIM WAS A SOLDIER THEN DO SO BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRADICT WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED HERE. You may want to ignore the facts but I intend to continue to state the facts and wait for more information to be released before I make any further judgments.

Translation - I will not pass judgement on a fellow lib even when the evidence is plain to see

 

[Edward]

It is funny to watch libs squirm when their fellow kooks openly show the hate and contempt they have for America and the US military

Unforunately for you no one is squirming since the facts do not support what you have posted. It may well require national news coverage now that some people have decided that they would start making up their own accounts of what happened. This may not happen for a few weeks since the investigation isn't yet complete but once it is complete people will get a laugh from this kind of idiocy. When the final investigative report is released showing that the shooter did not know the victim, and did not know that he was a soldier and did not make any statements to the effect that he was anti-military or anti-war then you are going to look foolish. The evidence speaks for itself. If this man wanted to kill a soldier he could have easily found one that was in uniform since it was the 4th of July but he didn't. Instead he shot a man who was not in uniform and whom he had no way of knowing was a soldier and his question was "do you live here" which would indicate that his motive had more to do with the occupants of the house and not the fact that he was shooting a soldier. Had the gun not mis-fired it would have probably resulted in him killing the soldier and proceeding to kill the rest of the occupants of the house since it appears that was probably his intentions but I suspect the police are already investigating this avenue since it is obvious he wanted to make sure that his victim lived in the house before shooting him.

 

[Edward]

Translation - I will not pass judgement on a fellow lib even when the evidence is plain to see

Translation: I'm an idiot who ignores the facts and what the local authorities have said instead preferring to believe Michelle Malkin and others who take a handful of news articles and draw conclusions using faulty logic based on a few facts.

You have not demonstrated any evidence to support what you say. Not a single piece of the evidence indicates that the shooter knew the victim, or knew he was a soldier and since the local authorities have clearly stated that they don't believe that the shooter was anti-war or anti-military and that the contents of the letters do not support this claim I choose to believe them instead of you and a handful of nutjobs who spend the majority of their time on the internet posting on blogs and in forums. There is absolutely no reason for the local authorities to lie and since the available sources do not claim that he was anti-war or anti-military there is no way to know what his intent was based on the statements of his aunt especially since expressing anger at the government is not the same as being anti-military or anti-war. But we can base his motive or lack thereof on the statements of the local authorities which have told us that they do not believe this has anything to do with the victim being a soldier.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I wonder why the liberal media has not reported this story

Air Force Airman Shot By Anti-war Protestor on July 4

It’s approaching two weeks since an Air Force Airman was shot by an anti-war protestor in Willingboro, New Jersey.

Yet, apart from an Associated Press article which conveniently ignored the apparent motives of the assailant, a New York Post op-ed by Michelle Malkin, and a mention by Glenn Beck on CNN's Headline News, not one major mainstream media outlet has reported the horrific event in print or on the air.

The AP report

Gunman Shoots McGuire Airman, Then Kills Self

WILLINGBORO, N.J. - July 5, 2007 - An airman from McGuire Air Force Base was in critical condition after being shot by another man who then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide, officials said.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5451694


No where does the article mention the killer was an anti war protester who wanted tp "make a statement"

http://newsbusters.org/node/14130

The AP story makes no mention of the motives of the shooter. The News Busters 'story' lacked any supporting evidence beyond the self-referencing links to other right-wing bloggers...Which also fail to present any supporting evidence.

So do us all a favor, give yer ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer ass.

 

[theHawk]

You have to be an idiot if you think the only way you can tell if someone is in the military is if they are in uniform. Hell, I can usually tell the differnce between Marines and Airmen out of uniform just by looking at their haircut. If the guy was in his front lawn, maybe his car had some military stickers on it, maybe he himself was wearing a military t-shirt.

And if he didn't know the victim at all, why did he choose him?