Did You Here About This?

[Larkinn]

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.

And it does NOT say he was anti-war. In fact he was anti-government and hated the military.

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

We need to keep spending on tons of nukes...why exactly?

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

Its funny to see how you bitch and whine whenever US soldiers are shone in anything but the most positive light.

By the way, any evidence that this show is being controlled by liberals?

Jesus...do you just copy and paste from newsbusters? Can't you think for yourself?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why yes. lets all group hug and dance about sing in happy peaceful little groups. No threats at all to us that require nuclear weapons, no need for A big navy, no need for that cumbersome Army and Marine Corps.

You simply amaze me with your two faced responses.

 

[Nevadamedic]

Why yes. lets all group hug and dance about sing in happy peaceful little groups. No threats at all to us that require nuclear weapons, no need for A big navy, no need for that cumbersome Army and Marine Corps.

You simply amaze me with your two faced responses.

 

[Edward]

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?

Apparently you think you are a guide to what other people know but the fact remains that it is upon you to prove that he knew this man was a soldier and that this shooting wasn't a "random act of violence" like the local authorities have repeatedly claimed. You also choose to ignore that the shooter asked the victim "do you live here" when asking the question "if he didn't know the victim at all, why did he choose him." According to the local authorities it was a random act of violence. That he asked the victim if he lived in the house would indicate that he didn't know that the man was a soldier since he would have asked something to the affect of "are you in the military" instead. He didn't do this instead he made an explicit reference to the residence that the man lived in and then said "now you don't" and shot him. It isn't upon me to prove that what the local authorities say is correct and prove a negative instead it is upon you to prove based on the available evidence that the man knew the victim was a soldier, was anti-military and anti-war and wanted to kill a soldier but you cannot do so with the current knowledge available to the public.

 

[theHawk]

That he asked the victim if he lived in the house would indicate that he didn't know that the man was a soldier since he would have asked something to the affect of "are you in the military" instead.

He could of known a soldier did live there, and thats why he asked. And it was also in the news that the eyewitness heard him say those things, and the suicide note.

 

[JeffWartman]

You have evidence he was not part of the anti-war movement?

You can't prove a negative. How dumb are you?

 

[ReillyT]

You can't prove a negative. How dumb are you?

Well, actually you can, but it is really, really, really hard, and requires tons of surveillance.

 

[red states rule]

You can't prove a negative. How dumb are you?

Libs do that all the time when they are busted

 

[red states rule]

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.

Only to libs, while trying to protect one of their own, would ignore the notes he left behind espressing his hate for the US military and how he wanted to send a message

 

[Edward]

He could of known a soldier did live there, and thats why he asked. And it was also in the news that the eyewitness heard him say those things, and the suicide note.

That is such great evidence you got there. He could have known that one of the five people who lived there was a soldier but he just decided to kill the first one he saw at the house. You have to be an imbecile if you believe that this man knew the victim was a soldier. If he knew that a soldier lived at the house then it would make more sense for him to confirm that the man was a soldier before shooting him. The victim did not live alone and as the local authorities have stated the shooter did not know the victim which would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the shooting had nothing to do with the victim being a soldier. At some point the facts have to take precedence over the hypothetical nonsense you believe which is contradicted by local authorites. Let me break it down as much as I can for your retarded ass. I am going to wait for the local authorities to complete their investigation or until they confirm that the shooter's motive was anti-military and anti-war before I rush to judgment considering the fact that the local authorities have stated that the facts do not support this version of events.

 

[Edward]

Only to libs, while trying to protect one of their own, would ignore the notes he left behind espressing his hate for the US military and how he wanted to send a message

The local authorities have stated that the letters do not support what you are saying and neither do the facts that are known. No one else is ignoring the letters but there is no evidence to support the letters being anti-military and the local authorities have stated that they do not support an anti-military or anti-war motive. It is quite clear that it is you who are ignoring the facts and trying to insert something into the letters that do not exist. Also, there are quite a few conservatives who are opposed to the war including anti-war groups on the right which even O'Reilly has covered but of course you know this man is a liberal anti-war protestor even though no one has said the letters were anti-war or anti-military and there is no basis to the claim that he was a liberal.

 

[red states rule]

The local authorities have stated that the letters do not support what you are saying and neither do the facts that are known. No one else is ignoring the letters but there is no evidence to support the letters being anti-military and the local authorities have stated that they do not support an anti-military or anti-war motive. It is quite clear that it is you who are ignoring the facts and trying to insert something into the letters that do not exist. Also, there are quite a few conservatives who are opposed to the war including anti-war groups on the right which even O'Reilly has covered but of course you know this man is a liberal anti-war protestor even though no one has said the letters were anti-war or anti-military and there is no basis to the claim that he was a liberal.

The liberal media is letting all of know how they see the US military - much like the anti war peace nik did

On Friday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in its "Cartoons From Around The World" section, featured a rather revolting "comic" by German cartoonist Rainer Hachfeld. In it, a panel showed children in Afghanistan shooting toy guns playfully at an American military plane, with panel two dramatizing the same plane attacking the kids with gunfire clearly hitting one as the other ran screaming for cover.

How delightful.

As this is the property of cartoon syndicator Daryl Cagle, copyright laws prevent unauthorized distribution. However, as the above link indicates, Hachfeld's piece was also published at Cagle's MSNBC.com webpage.

NewsBusters' member Saw the Light, who forwarded this piece to me, made the following sage observations about the cartoon which he has given me permission to share:

With the railing on Haditha and the elevation of Kerry and Murtha, this view fits the template of many of the leftists who view the military with scorn and hatred...The reaction of the media is that they are guilty of crimes to make My Lai look like an afternoon at the park.


I quite agree, and concur with STL's further explanation of the cartoonist's message: "One, the US sees everything as a threat and is too quick to respond with deadly force. Two, the US military has no regard for innocents in any way, killing wantonly without any reservation."

That about says it.

In the end, this is a German cartoon. However, that an American newspaper, and one of the leading American news websites, would disseminate it speaks quite loudly about how our press views those risking their lives to protect this nation and all it stands for...including the media's rights under the First Amendment.

I need to go scrub my hands and this keyboard of this despicable vision, for it makes me wonder how people who publish this invective can possibly be citizens of the same country I call home.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/21/cartoon-depicts-u-s-military-child-killers