March 31st, 2006
You remember the Vietnam War -er - Conflict, don’t you? O.K. Some of us are a little too young to really remember it. I have a vague recollection of the end of it and I studied it in school and, of course, I saw like every episode of China Beach and had my hair cut like Dana Delany for a whole year of college.
Anyway, the whole thing was a mess. Everyone pretty much accepts that now. Heck, I think the 2004 elections pretty much prove that we still are fighting our demons from Vietnam. We can’t seem to agree whether it was more honorable to serve, to dodge, to get a deferment, or to disappear. It’s clear that no one that served came out unscathed and we’re still beating them up. But we beat up the ones who didn’t go either.
During that time period, between 50,000 and 60,000 Americans crossed the border into Canada to avoid serving in Vietnam. Some of them were avoiding the draft, some of them were already in service.
The War in Iraq apparently is no different. Hundreds of deserters from the U.S. armed forces have crossed the border and “are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum.”
Lee Zaslofsky, 61, the coordinator of the War Resisters’ Support Campaign in Toronto, said that he was impressed by the young men who were seeking asylum. “Some have been to Iraq and others have heard what goes on there,” he said. “Mainly, what they discuss is being asked to do things they consider repugnant. Most are quite patriotic … Many say they feel tricked by the military.”
Read the whole story.
Hat tip to Susie at Suburban Guerrilla.
Tags: American soldiers, protest, Iraq, Canada, Vietnam War
March 14th, 2006
More Spying on Americans just for exercising their American rights…
PITTSBURGH (Reuters) -FBI anti-terrorism agents spied on a peace group simply because it opposed the
Iraq war, part of an “unprecedented campaign” to spy on innocent citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union said on Tuesday.
FBI documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act and provided to reporters show the FBI conducted surveillance of the Pittsburgh-based Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice at anti-war demonstrations and leaflet distributions in 2002 and 2003.
One of the FBI documents, unveiled at a news conference by the two groups, carried the headline “International Terrorism Matters” and referred to the FBI’s work with an anti-terrorism task force that includes several agencies.
Another FBI document said the Pittsburgh Joint Terrorism Task Force had learned that “The Thomas Merton Center … has been determined to be an organization which is opposed to the United States’ war with Iraq.” [“FBI spied on Pittsburgh pacifists, papers show” (Yahoo!News)]
I like lambert’s response on Corrente:
They’ve been calling us traitors for years, so why not take them at their word? Although the logic is a little odd: There aren’t a lot of committed pacifists who turn into terrorists, and most terrorists I’ve heard of don’t want to draw attention to themselves by handing out leaflets. Still, who expects logic from these guys?
Tags: FBI, politics, anti-war, protest, spying on Americans, Freedom of Information Act, Thomas Merton Center
March 10th, 2006
The Department of Defense admitted in a letter obtained by NBC News on Thursday that it had wrongly added peaceful demonstrators to a database of possible domestic terrorist threats. The letter followed an NBC report focusing on the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, report.
Acting Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Roger W. Rogalski’s letter came in reply to a memo from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who had demanded answers about the process of identifying domestic protesters as suspicious and removing their names when they are wrongly listed.
“The recent review of the TALON Reporting System … identified a small number of reports that did not meet the TALON reporting criteria. Those reports dealt with domestic anti-military protests or demonstrations potentially impacting DoD facilities or personnel,” Rogalski wrote on Wednesday.
[…]
Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities. One briefing document stamped “secret” concludes: “[W]e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the Internet,” but no “significant connection” between incidents, such as “reoccurring instigators at protests” or “vehicle descriptions.” [“Pentagon admits errors in spying on protestors” (MSNBC)]
Are we really expected to believe that these are just mistakes with the system? I mean, come on! The U.S. Military has a history of spying on American dissenters. During Vietnam, the military used American soldiers to inflitrate the anti-war movement to spy on Americans exercising their Constitutional freedom of speech. I just find it hard to believe that given the current atmosphere of terror and bullying from the current administration that this wouldn’t be overlooked or even encouraged behavior again. After all, if the President can do it…
Tags: politics, Conspiracy Theories, Pentagon, spying on Americans, protestors, TALON, NBC News, Defense Department
September 8th, 2005
Camp Katrina and bushville are trying to organize a “nonviolent act of Civil Disobedience by building an encampment on the Washington DC Mall on September 11th while the politicians pomp and circumstance in their Freedom March.
They will camp in the seat of power and media demand truth and action.
They will stay there as long as it takes.
-Through 9/11
-Through the Katrina investigations
-Through the Supreme Court Hearings
On 9/11 Bush will use the flag to try to blind us.
Founding Camp Katrina on 9/11 will keep America’s attention on the criminal negligence of Bush.
They don’t actually clearly say anything about what they’re protesting. While I agree that everyone from city officials to the President messed up with Hurricane Katrina, I’m not sure if I agree with this action…particularly since they don’t clearly state their goals/mission/whatever.
Tags: Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, protest, George W. Bush
August 30th, 2005
Some people would have you believe that all of the soldiers oversees are glad to be there and see the Iraq War as a noble mission. Some people would have you believe that all of the soldiers are personally insulted by war protestors. Some people would have you believe that you cannot support your troops and be against the war in Iraq at the same time.
I don’t believe that’s true. I’m of the opinion that the soldiers in the military have their own minds and their own opinions despite the fact that the military tries to train that out of them early on. 
My friend D, who’s a military lawyer and an officer, who’s been told he could ship out for active duty in Iraq any day, has indicated to me that he doesn’t have this hive thinking. He thinks this is the wrong war and the wrong time. He’s not the only one I’ve talked to either. He’s not the only one who’s voicing his opinion either.
I think there are just as many soldiers both here in the states and overseas in Iraq who have mixed feelings about the whole thing as there are civilians. I think there are just as many soldiers as civilians who have questions that the administration won’t answer. I think we’re all in the same boat.
And I don’t believe that soldiers today are affected the same way by anti-war protests as they were in Vietnam. For the most part, most of those protesting don’t hate the military. They seem to be interested in bringing our soldiers home safely and alive and all in one piece. We’ve learned from the Vietnam experience. We’ve come of age. Well, some of us anyway.
The following is from a transcript of an interview with First Sergeant Perry Jefferies, a 20 year veteran, who served in Iraq before retiring last year:
BRANCACCIO: What do you make of [Cindy Sheehan’s vigil]?
PERRY JEFFERIES: I think it’s pretty interesting. I like the fact that she’s putting stress on the system. Asking for an answer to a question that has not been asked enough yet. There’s a lot of people out there. I don’t know that they’re all germane to that situation. But I don’t think it’s bad that they’re being allowed to express their opinions.
BRANCACCIO: Do you consider yourself a– I don’t know, a peacenik?
PERRY JEFFERIES: No, not at all.
PERRY JEFFERIES: I love this country. I think we need a strong defense. In a perfect world, sure, nobody would fight. Nobody would want to invade our land or take over our ideals or force their way of life on us. But that’s not how the world is. And so the only way that we can maintain our way of life is to have a strong defense and to be ready to defend that when need be. To do that we need an accomplished army. Well trained. Well resourced. With all the things they need to do what they do. And we had that before we started this little adventure here. Now we’re beginning to eat it up and chew it up. The equipment and the people are getting chewed up and spat out. And that’s not the right way to defend our country.
BRANCACCIO: I was reading Reuters this week and I saw a quote from a Vietnam vet over at the VFW convention. And he thought that Cindy Sheehan can’t have it both ways. You can’t be against the war and for the troops. What are your thoughts on that?
PERRY JEFFERIES: Oh, I don’t think that’s right at all. I tell you I was in Iraq and we saw some of the peace protests that were done at that time. And I felt like people really cared about me because they were taking the time to address the issues. And get really involved and do something rather than just emit jingoistic slogans.
BRANCACCIO: And you’re not concerned that it somehow dishonors people who are working so hard over there, putting their lives at risk, when people question the policy there?
PERRY JEFFERIES: No, I think that’s why our people– that’s why our young men and women all are working over there. So that people can express that opinion. And we want that for the Iraqi people and we want to make sure we maintain that for us here too.
BRANCACCIO: Now the President of the United States said this week that the best way to honor people who are serving there, as well as those who have served, like yourself, is to stay the course and get the job done. What’s your reaction?
PERRY JEFFERIES: Well, I think what he’s done is he’s tried to set up a straw man and say that people there are advocating an absolute pullout.
BRANCACCIO: An immediate withdrawal?
PERRY JEFFERIES: Right. I don’t think that’s reasonable now. And I think that Mrs. Sheehan’s question is ‘what noble cause?’ And I think that’s an issue that needs to be addressed. And we accomplished all of the objectives that we said that we were going to Iraq for. So for what reason are we staying? Everybody talks about this course and winning. But no one can define it. And until we identify that problem and assess what we have to do to accomplish the goal. Our men and women are just idling in the kill zone. They’re just killing time over there.
So we need to figure out what we’re doing there, make sure the American public agrees to do that, and will make the sacrifices necessary, and to give our men and women on the ground the resources they need. And when they come home then we need to make sure that they are taken care of properly.
BRANCACCIO: You’re saying the resources they need. But also what? A more clearly defined strategy? That’s what you’re asking for?
PERRY JEFFERIES: Exactly. There seems to be no real mission right now. We keep talking about winning and fighting terrorists. But terrorism is a technique. You can’t win against terrorism. We’ve talked about turning it over to the Iraqi Army and we’ve talked about the constitutional process. The original reasons that were given to the public are obviously not true.
But the fact is we got about 140,000 of America’s best and brightest sitting in the desert and just sort of standing in a kill zone, waiting for something to happen so that they can react to it. They’re working hard. At the company level, each and every day they’re doing their little projects. They’re making schools. They’re building roads. But that’s not why we sent them there. That’s not why we’re spending that money. So we need to tell them what the goal is, what they have to achieve. The military will make a plan to accomplish that and you can get those people home.
BRANCACCIO: What about just the goal establishing political stability in Iraq? I mean that’s ostensibly what’s going on. That’s what we’re waiting for?
PERRY JEFFERIES: Well, that’s what they’re saying but that’s an awful amorphous goal. You can’t define that in metrics. Mr. Rumsfeld, the civilian head of the Pentagon right now, he comes from a corporate world where everything is measured. And every night our commanders in Iraq have to submit all kinds of data, reams of data and numbers to what they call a battle update brief. Where they keep track of what they’ve done that day. And yet there seems to be no metric that defines our success. And the only numbers we hear are changed constantly. How many Iraqi troops are trained. How many schools are built. How many soldiers are coming or going. We have the generals saying one thing. The civilian leadership saying another. And none it seems to make any sense. We need a hard and fast goal. [“Now Transcript - August 26, 2005″ (PBS)]
Jefferies is obviously someone who’s lived it and put a lot of thought into what needs to be done. We need more people like him — people who see the big picture and don’t focus on knee-jerk reactions of “us” vs. “them”.
The following is from the Star Tribune in the Letters from readers section:
As a U.S. Marine currently deployed to Iraq, I would like to respectfully disagree with a fellow Minnesotan who stated that people who protest the war hurt troops’ morale (”Letters from readers,” Aug. 26).
Public debate and discussion are vital to the health of a democracy. It is a good thing when I see Americans exercising their right of freedom of speech.
Seeing people exercise freedoms that many in other countries don’t have is something that we all should be thankful for — whether you agree with what is being said or not. Semper Fidelis!
James Haugerud,
Camp Blue Diamond,
Ar Ramadi, Iraq. [“What Is He Fighting For?” (Star Tribune)]
Yay for Haugerud for realizing that our right to protest is what he’s a defender of. We can’t sacrifice our own freedoms in the name of bringing freedom to other countries. That’s extremely hypocritical.
And these quotes are from an article in The Pensacola News:
If there’s growing sentiment against the war in Iraq, many area veterans of the fight aren’t taking it personally.
Vets see the opposition as a protest against policy, not them or their service.[“Vets see protests as attack on policy” (The Pensacola News)]
“I have run into people who don’t support the president’s views on Iraq or our objectives, but I haven’t run into a single person who said (he or she) doesn’t support the troops,” said Jason Crawford, a Purple Heart recipient who was shot in the face by opposition forces in December 2003 while in Iraq. “I think our society learned from Vietnam that it’s not the men and women who sacrifice their lives and signed on the dotted lines who make up the plans and objectives. I think pretty much everyone supports the troops.”
That’s even if they don’t approve of the U.S. involvement in Iraq that began in March 2003. [“Vets see protests as attack on policy” (The Pensacola News)]
Finally someone who gets that you can support your troops while disapproving of the Commander -in-Chief and his minions.
Army Reserves Lt. Col. Alice Bell, 46, who spent 10 months in Kuwait in support of the Iraq invasion, said she has heard nothing but praise since returning home.
“It’s not like in Vietnam, when they spat on troops coming back,” she said. “Some people don’t agree with the mission itself. But even if they’re against the war effort, they’re for the troops. They realize we’re doing what we have to do, what we’ve been ordered to do, whether we agree with it or not.” [“Vets see protests as attack on policy “(The Pensacola News)]
But Crawford and others believe there would be fewer protests and more support for military operations in Iraq if Americans had a clearer picture of what’s going on there.
[“Vets see protests as attack on policy” (The Pensacola News)]
That last one is so true. Maybe if Americans felt that the Administration was more upfront with them, maybe if the Administration answered some of the publics questions with real answers instead of slogans and rhetoric, maybe if more time was spent explaining the productive efforts of the troops and not just the fighting part, maybe there would be fewer protestors.
Hat tip to The Green Knight and Shakespeare’s Sister.
Tags: Iraq, anti-war, protest, American soldiers, Support the Troops
August 28th, 2005
Has anyone else noticed that all of the violence in Crawford by protestors has been from people protesting the anti-war protestors?
A few weeks ago Larry Northern used his pickup truck to run over the mini-memorial of crosses to represent fallen soldiers in Iraq. Then Larry Mattlage grew annoyed with the crowds and fired shots into the air on his nearby property.
Now that Crawford is full of protestors protesting the anti-war protestors as well, there’s bound to be even more trouble like yesterday’s incident:
In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on what they mistakenly thought were a group of anti-war protesters, cursing them, threatening them and tearing down their signs. A police officer rushed the group to safety. [“Bush warns of more sacrifice in Iraq, protesters rally” (Reuters)]
Meanwhile, all you hear from the Camp Casey is news interviews and requests to meet with the protestors protesting them to head off these sorts of incidents. Pretty funny when you consider that the bleeding heart liberals are always accused of violent protests.
I really feel as though if the right-wing would just ignore Sheehan, she’d fade away. Well, perhaps if they’d ignored her in the beginning, she would have. Now with every protest against Sheehan, they are giving her more publicity and more sympathy from the dissatisfied public. As long as she’s seen as a victim, they give her power and continuously attacking her only feeds that.
Tags: pro-war, protestors, anti-war, pro-Bush, Cindy Sheehan
August 18th, 2005
So, here’s the deal. This has been bothering me for a couple of days.
There have been rumors circling the web about Cindy Sheehan announcing that she wouldn’t pay taxes to a government that sent her son to die. I haven’t seen this reported on CNN.com, Yahoo!News, ABC News, etc. O’Reilly mentioned it in passing last night and I’ve seen it mentioned on World Net Daily, which appears to be some sort of conservative tabloid-like propoganda e-zine. I even checked out her blog on Michael Moore’s website. The most “credible” is a transcript of her speech for Veterans For Peace’s 2005 convention earlier this month.
Another thing that I’m doing is - - my son was killed in 2004, so I’m not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I’m gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don’t owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won’t owe you a penny.
And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you’ve been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin’ war on trial. And I want to say, “You give me my son, and I’ll pay your taxes.:”Veterans For Peace(Cindy Sheehan’s speach at the 2005 convention)”: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm
As much as I respect what she’s doing in Crawford, as much as I respect what she’s become a symbol of, this is wrong.
Seriously, that’s just wrong.
I mean, that tax money goes to lots of things, not just the war.
Granted, I wish the IRS would let me select where I want my money to go like United Way does. I mean, if I had my way, my tax money like my United Way money would be going to Community Services, specifically to Food Banks and the like. Really, I think if the government let people specify the people in charge might be suprised what the people thought was worthy of spending money on.
Then again, it might be like college all over again. Alumni, you know, are more likely to donate to the athletic program of most colleges than new buildings for educational purposes. Maybe if people got to pick where their money went when they did their taxes, I’d be surprised.
Anyway, the point is that not paying taxes isn’t like withholding your rent because your landlord won’t fix the radiator — though I think you can still go to jail or get fined for that too. That money is necessary for the government to run and you may think that your piddly amount won’t be missed but schools, social services, etc. are seriously underfunded. Even the war apparently is underfunded…at least the part where our troops are well-outfitted and their vehicles are properly armored. Every cent counts.
Granted, I still have some admiration for her, but she’s a little more tinged today than yesterday in my eyes.
Tags: Cindy Sheehan, stupidity, protestors
August 14th, 2005
The American Spectator certainly knows how to win friends and influence people.
Crocodile Tears
By Christopher Orlet
Published 8/12/2005 12:06:48 AM
Cindy Sheehan has now been squatting in a roadside ditch near President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch since August 6. And every day more aging hippies, professional grievance-mongers, and underemployed liberal arts majors show up with their backpacks and banjos to join her. Squatting in ditches, sleeping in pup tents, and sitting around a campfire at night yodeling “This Land Is Your Land” is after all the anti-war protesters idea of nirvana.
I just don’t understand why anyone in either party feels the need to resort to regularly insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with their political views. Politics is the new racism, isn’t it? Just remember the old cliche: You get more flies with honey. Maybe if people on both sides of the fence started treating each other with respect and common courtesy, we might find some middle ground to meet on…but then I suspect there are a number of loud mouth rebel-rousers that don’t want anyone meeting in the middle. What then would they have to rally about? Who would be listening?
Tags: Cindy Sheehan, George W. Bush, politics, protestors, mud-slinging
August 12th, 2005
To be honest, I haven’t said anything about Cindy Sheehan here simply because it seemed like everyone else was talking about her and so many liberals had already voiced how I felt and expressed it in much better words that I think I could have.
Just in case you didn’t know, I deeply respect Cindy, her courage and her dedication. I wish that I could believe that if I were in her position, I would be sitting there in her chair. I’m not even sure I’m brave enough to be one of those who’ve joined her — I keep thinking of practical things like paying my bills and keeping my job and quite frankly I think what Cindy is doing is far more important. It’s about time someone started trying to get the President’s attention to let him know that maybe things aren’t going as well as his minions are telling him. Quite frankly, I think she’s amazing, a heroine, a role model, and apparently I’m not alone — just look at all the people who have been brave enough to join her. Those people are my heroes too. Without people like them, nothing would ever change.
CNN.com - Bush motorcade passes anti-war mom’s protest - Aug 12, 2005
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush’s motorcade, en route to a political fund-raiser near his ranch, passed Friday by the site of Cindy Sheehan’s Iraq war protest where more than 100 people had gathered to support her.
Sheehan — whose son, Casey, was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq last year at age 24 — held a sign that read: “Why do you make time for donors and not for me?”
I bring this up because I found this post at Brilliant at Breakfast written by a conservative and it so eloquently expressed my feelings about Cindy and those who want to discredit her. I’m so tired of seeing conservative right-wingers who just regurgitate rhetoric and propoganda who can’t do anything more than quote Rush and O’Reilly as their arguments for why they are right and anyone who doesn’t agree is wrong. I’m tired of seeing people on both sides of the party line who refuse to look at the big picture and realize that when you select your party on your voter registration, you aren’t signing your mind over to political brainwashing. No one is going to take your voters’ rights away if you say something bad about your party, it’s current platform, or even it’s head honcho. You are not betraying your party if you read or hear some fact that doesn’t agree with what you’ve been told. I’m tired of people ignoring facts that don’t fit with what they want to believe.
Anyway, here’s the post that made me think there is hope…a liberal and a conservative agreeing on something — we might be o.k. afterall…
-THE CUNNING REALIST-: Decency Is Not In Them
Even when something really outrages me, usually that outrage gives way to a bit of calm, measured thinking. With the Cindy Sheehan story, that’s not the case.
If one needed any further proof that this incarnation of “Republicans” and alleged conservatives includes a faction that has gone completely and tragically over the edge, the smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan is it. For those who might not be familiar with the details of this and are looking for an accurate, factual account, a good summary appears here.
The essence of the right-wing smear machine’s “outing” of Cindy Sheehan is her supposed flip-flop from supporting President Bush in 2004 to disapproving of him in 2005. As details of this have become clearer, it’s obvious the flip-flop is nothing more than a canard. But setting aside the Sheehan story for a moment, have any of the shameless smearsters seen the public opinion polls recently? Here’s some breaking news for them: a whole lot of Americans who supported Bush a year ago—including an increasingly large part of his “base”—have turned against him. And that includes many millions of people who haven’t lost a parent, child, or sibling in Iraq.
There are so many side issues of shamelessness and crass opportunism in this story it makes my head spin. Think about the gall of a political and media machine “accusing” a private citizen of changing her mind (imagine that!) about an elected and supposedly accountable public official. When did a private citizen supposedly changing her opinion about something rise to the same level as a flip-flop about firing anyone involved in the leaking a CIA agent’s name? At what point did the ability to change one’s mind about a politician become something to be ridiculed and accused of instead of cherished as a basic right? And it’s not as if in the past year we haven’t learned anything about the pre-war manipulation of intelligence, as well as the incompetent planning, that resulted in the death of Cindy Sheehan’s son and thousands of others like him.
Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas—a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that’s right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.
If I had lost a parent, child or sibling in Iraq, I’d be right next to Cindy Sheehan sitting in that dust and heat. And I wouldn’t budge until the president—ensconced within that reassuring bubble of faith, brush-clearing and mountain bike-riding—found a few moments to come listen to me. I hope as many people as possible join her protest and offer her food, water, and whatever legal or media assistance she may need.
In the meantime, it behooves the rest of us to do our part and engage in some “outing” of our own. That includes identifying and relentlessly shaming those who have become so unmoored from morality that not only have they abandoned the uniquely American ideals of accountability and sacrifice, they openly ridicule them.
Amen.
Tags: Cindy Sheehan, anti-war, protestors, politics, George W. Bush, Iraq, mud-slinging
July 31st, 2005
Remember 10 days ago when I thought that second London Bombing attempt was a copycat?
This article appeared on CNN.com today. Apparently they’ve arrested one of the July 21rst attempted “bombers” in Italy and he claims that is was an act of protest against London’s participation in the War on Iraq and seems to indicate that he never intended for anyone to die.
Hussain Osman, who is also known as Hamdi Issac, said the four men who partially detonated backpack bombs before running from their targets on July 21 were not working with the July 7 bombers who killed themselves and 52 travelers on three London Underground trains and a bus, the source said.
Osman also claimed the July 21 group was not working for al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization behind the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, last year’s Madrid train bombings and numerous atrocities worldwide.
Further, the source said, Osman told authorities the bombs were meant to draw attention to anger over the war in Iraq and not to kill anyone.
“I am against war,” the source quoted Osman as saying. “I’ve marched in peace rallies and nobody listened to me. I never thought of killing people.”
Further more, the 4 men involved in the 7/7 attack were of Pakistani ethnicity while at least three of the men involved in the 7/21 “attack” were from East Africa.
Why admit to the crime but deny Al-Q connections if you are a true soldier of the jihad?
And if they really were just trying to protest the war, why pick this method?
Oy. What a messed up world we are in. Sometimes I think I’m the only sane one, but I’m in therapy, on anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds, and come from a line of family displaying signs of odd quirks and mental illness…still I do think I’m increasingly becoming one of the few sane ones left.
Tags: CNN, London bombing, terrorism, anti-war, protest
