The Catholic Cindy Sheehan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debunkerman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
convert_2000:
I wonder how much of her foul language was used in the presence of the youth that she’s used in the public recently. I’m glad she wasn’t ministering to my children.
There was a video of one of her antiwar/hate America speechs at a school…with the vulgar language in it…teacher was in the room…

She is using her sons good name to further her agenda…and now even some dems are distancing themselves…à mon avis.(in my opinion)
 
Traditional Ang:
Tim:

Thank you for your service.

A few of the members of the congregation at St. Mary’s have been rotating in and out of Iraq. One is a Master Sargeant. We also have a mother whose son disposes of bombs who was last in Pashawar Province, Pakistan (he kept a Shia Mosque full of worshippers from being blown up).

A nun (LA Archdiocese) had the gall to walk away from the mother of this man when she said he was in the armed forces. It is tough keeping your faith on these deployments, and when people keep questioning what you’re doing and why.

I can only imagine how difficult that is.

May God bless you and His angels protect you.

In Christ, Michael
My service was interupted just prior to ship. As this unit fought on the first Fallujah attack, I was home fighting cancer. I recovered from the chemo, but they are still there. As a 32 y.o. enlisted, I had said to myself, It will take an act of God to keep me from serving, and that is exactly what happened. I had full knowledge of what I was getting into at 32, as some 18 y.o. may not have. I now believe I was spared of My descisions through intervention, as was my wife and four kids. I’ve struggled, watching these kids at war, feeling I could have helped, and with what they may have to face when they come home. My heart goes out to Cindy Sheenan, and others in conflict. The inward battle that soldiers and families face in war to keep faith must be hard at best. As infantry, and now a believer, I see a conflict of My mindset during training to the teachings of Christ. I hope compassion is extended to those affected by war, regardless of politics, to bring us all closer to Christ. Please don’t thank me, the Lord has blessed and helped me in many ways, but may God bless those with good intentions to the true path to His Glory, soldiers and protesters alike. And thank God for his Virtues, who we all need in this time., Tim
 
I have lost a son. It’s something I would not wish on anyone, there’s no describing the pain. It did not change my tongue. If you’re claiming to be Christian, then act Christian.

One article isn’t going to tell the true story of the reason for the Iraq war. We may never know the truth. We are in a war and now is not the time to be a Cindy Sheehan. She’s helping turn this into a Viet Nam. Many of those service men were broken because of the activities going on here.
dc dave:
My guess is none. That is not to say that she has not lapsed into some strong language to describe the massive bloodlet that our leaders have unforgivably lied us into. I, for one, would love to have had her ministering to my children, one of whom is now in the seminary.

Cindy Sheehan also stands accused of questioning the motives of our leaders. For shame! Check out what former Reagan administration official, Paul Craig Roberts, has to say along those lines:

Bush’s Iraq policy is based on lies, and force based on lies cannot bring democracy to Iraq or to any other country.

Bush’s lies are discrediting and destroying democracy in America. His “Patriot Act” alone has done more damage to Americans’ freedom than Osama bin Laden.

Why did Bush invade Iraq?

informationclearinghouse.info/article9230.htm
 
dc dave:
We can be more …Midwinter of sixty-eight.
With all due respect this is a lot of words amounting to vague, unsupported allegations, speculation, and hearsay.

The central question is: did Casey enlist?

The central answer is: yes.

Occam’s Razor.

Does it surprise me that Ms Sheehan is plugged in about the signing bonus, the laptop, the school courses? No. Not after looking really hard at her tax troubles and the money trail since those troubles.

So do you think it is possible that the signing bonus, the laptop, and the school courses were due on completion of Casey’s mission maybe? And, when Casey was KIA, did Ms Sheehan expect to cash in on the signing bonus, the laptop, and the school courses?

Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. Where does Casey end and his mother begin?

Occam’s Razor again: What was the job Casey consented to perform? Was it operating a laptop? No. Was it bookkeeping for the perks owed him? No. Was it going to school? No. The job Casey consented to perform was to serve in the US Army as a specialist.

Ms Sheehan keeps on itemizing the ‘perks’ she feels entitled to on behalf of a son who was a separate adult human being. People who join the army for the ‘perks’ are joining the wrong firm.

The army is for service. Not grab as grab can. Service. And people who try to capitalize on those perks vicariously through a son are well advised – with all due respect – to look to their own well-being and get a job – and a life – of their own.

Casey said, “I wish I didn’t have to go, Mom, but I have to. It’s my duty and my buddies are going.” And Ms Sheehan interprets this to mean that he disagreed with the war. Of all the worlds of possible interpretations Ms Sheehan chose the one which was the least plausible but the most likely to suit her own goals.

A plausible interpretation is that Casey felt conflicted, knowing his mother’s strong views and aggressive methods of self-expression. Note that he said that it was his duty to go to war. Note that he said that his buddies were going to war.

Obviously duty and friendship meant something to the lad. Obviously Casey chose very carefully the hill he wanted to die on and that hill was not within his mother’s field of engagement. In my opinion, Casey knew very well where the boundaries were.

And that meant that the enlisting of Casey Sheehan was not a cherrypicking perk-fest. It was about having a sense of priorities. Casey had his priorities straight. Ms Sheehan imho has her priorities skewed.

I say this because I believe – with all due respect – that Ms Sheehan has a serious problem respecting personal boundaries – not only because of the way she characterizes her son’s personal individual adult choices, but also because of the abrasive and disrespectful way she characterizes those she opposes, notably those of authority figures.

Again this thread is about The Catholic Cindy Sheehan. I have brought to light some behaviours which – speaking as one Catholic to another Catholic – I believe are matters for confession, communion, and ongoing spiritual direction.

One could say: “How does Ani know whether or not Ms Sheehan has gone to confession?” I don’t. However, I do know that self-examination, repentance, and the willingness to turn away from sin is part of confession.

I do not see signs of self-examination and repentance in Ms Sheehan’s behaviour; it always seems to be about the bad guys out there, the bad guys being authority figures, and the long long long list of how they have wounded her sense of entitlement.
 
dc dave:
I was opposed to our role in the Vietnam War from the beginning, but by the time we got in with both feet, I had already made my military commitment.
Iraq is not Nam.
 
40.png
convert_2000:
I wonder how much of her foul language was used in the presence of the youth that she’s used in the public recently. I’m glad she wasn’t ministering to my children.
dc dave:
My guess is none.
Your guess? Any support for your guess?
dc dave:
That is not to say that she has not lapsed into some strong language to describe the massive bloodlet that our leaders have unforgivably lied us into.
So, foul language is wrong except when Ms Sheehan decides it is not wrong? So are we really talking about the Catholic Cindy Sheehan? Or are we talking about the Moral Relativist Cindy Sheehan? Is this thread really about the Catholic Cindy Sheehan or is the ‘Catholic’ just a pretext to rehash a closed thread on a Catholic forum? I would like to know, please.
dc dave:
I, for one, would love to have had her ministering to my children, one of whom is now in the seminary.
Do you think the Church would approve of her ministering to children in the fashion to which she has become accustomed? That’s really what is being asked in the thread, isn’t it?
dc dave:
Why did Bush invade Iraq?
Actually, gilliam has contributed quite a bit of extraordinary information on this and much forwarding discussion has taken place on previous threads.
 
I am very sorry to hear of your illness, TOP. And I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your son, convert_2000. May God bless and comfort you both.
 
40.png
aimee:
This thread is just a re hash of the same…

Also, seems disingenuous to me. :rolleyes:
Aimee:

You’re probably right.

I can’t say that what’s been going on here has been a frank and Charitable discussion about Ms. Sheehan or about the Iraq war.

I believe that posters on one side has done their best to have a discussion while some on the other have used a variety of debating tactics designed to exasperate and exhaust them.

I believe these tactics have no resemblance to Christian Charity or even to a civil discussion.

If I am wrong, I offer my humble apologies, but that doesn’t change the fact that I believe that this thread isn’t doing anything to edify any of us who are participating in it.

If you feel that I’m wrong, and that an edifying and meaningful discussion is happening here, I’d appreciate it if you would post your thoughts here.

Otherwise, I think it would be best to close this thread.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Aimee:

You’re probably right.

I can’t say that what’s been going on here has been a frank and Charitable discussion about Ms. Sheehan or about the Iraq war.

I believe that posters on one side has done their best to have a discussion while some on the other have used a variety of debating tactics designed to exasperate and exhaust them.

I believe these tactics have no resemblance to Christian Charity or even to a civil discussion.

If I am wrong, I offer my humble apologies, but that doesn’t change the fact that I believe that this thread isn’t doing anything to edify any of us who are participating in it.

If you feel that I’m wrong, and that an edifying and meaningful discussion is happening here, I’d appreciate it if you would post your thoughts here.

Otherwise, I think it would be best to close this thread.

In Christ, Michael
Yes…I agree with you…its all been said…
 
40.png
convert_2000:
I have lost a son. It’s something I would not wish on anyone, there’s no describing the pain. It did not change my tongue. If you’re claiming to be Christian, then act Christian.

One article isn’t going to tell the true story of the reason for the Iraq war. We may never know the truth. We are in a war and now is not the time to be a Cindy Sheehan. She’s helping turn this into a Viet Nam. Many of those service men were broken because of the activities going on here.
convert_2000:

The most telling conversation I had was with a self-described “Leftist” and “Left-Winger”. This was in the month before SecState Powell had gone to the United nations with the Intelligence from several Intelligence agancies about Saddam Hussein.

I had managed to get some of the reports on the people that Hussein had had tortured and the atrocities that Hussein had committed against his own people. The report was pretty thorough, so I went into some detail with this “Leftist” about what Hussein was doing to 10.000"s of people.

The YAWNS couldn’t have been BIGGER!! and, when I asked, “Shouldn’t we depose him just to stop THAT?” I was told that it was no business of ours and that we had no right to interfere in their affairs.

This continued even when I reminded the “Leftist” about the genocide in Rwanda and the massive slaughter in Cambodia when we failed to intervene, and that the Clinton Administration had intervened in Yugoslavia when it was an “Internal Issue”.

The stomp away in anger said that the “Leftist” would never admit the point.

I really think that many of those opposing the war would rather have the Iraqi people suffer as they were than to have the monster removed and be given the chance to fight for their own freedom while they had an ally.

I’m sorry that I have to say that, but I can’t see any other explanation for the way some of them act.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
convert_2000:

The most telling conversation I had was with a self-described “Leftist” and “Left-Winger”. This was in the month before SecState Powell had gone to the United nations with the Intelligence from several Intelligence agancies about Saddam Hussein.

Might the writer be referring to the speech that Powell has since referred to–quite appropriately, I might add–as a “blot on his record” because of its high fiction content? abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

It is also wrong to imply that only left wingers are opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The most cogent criticism I have read comes from conseratives like Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, and Joseph Sobran.

See antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=7465 , antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7282 , sobran.com/columns/2005/050301.shtml for a small sample of their anti-war writings.
 
Traditional Ang:
Debunkerman:

So, Can I assume that you would rather we have left Saddam Hussein alone so that he could:
  1. Torture 10,000’s of Iraqis to death, some as young as 7 years, and had equal numbers of women gang-raped in front of their husbands, parents and other loved ones, some as young as 11 years old?
  2. Deny food, water, electricity, medicine and other necessities to Shias and other suspected political oponents while using money from the “Oil for Food Program” to buy weapons, build palaces and bunkars and reward his chronies for their service?
  3. Continue paying $25,000 to the families of Homicide Bombers who successfully slaughtered Jewish men women and Children in Israel? and, Providing training camps, hospital care, safe haven and money for known Al-Queda members and boses?
  4. Walk around as a free man after trying to assassinate President Bush the elder and paying for the first attack on the WTC (evidence linking him to the attack came out during the various trials), and attacking the civilian populations of countries he wasn’t at war with during the Gulf War? and,
  5. Contunue manufacting and stockpiling WMD as reported by most of the world’s intelligence services? (Mossad reports they helped the Russians drive the WMD to three storage facilities in Syria in the months leading up to the latest Gulf War)
Are you really trying to say that Hussein should have been left in power to continue doing these things and more?

I’m asking the question, because I don’t think you realize what the alternative to deposing Saddam was, or just how many INNOCENT Iraqis he had slaughtered between 1991 and 2002.
You would be wrong to conclude that I would prefer Hosni Mubarak continue torturing people because I do not favor invading and occupying Egypt.

You stated that Saddam paid those that “slaughtered Jewish men women and Children in Israel” and you stated that the Israeli Mossad knows about the WMDs. Then perhaps Israel should have invaded and occupied Iraq rather than our service men and women. Why aren’t the Israeli troops in Iraq since we have armed them to the teeth? Israel has the most powerful army in the region and our “ally” is AWOL from the “coalition of the willing.”

Our government gave weapons to Saddam and Israel, but unlike Israel, Iraq did not attack the USS Liberty and kill our servicemen. Israel attacked our ship and killed our men and nothing is done. Our men and women in the armed services deserve better. We should defend our men.
ussliberty.org/

The Washington Times reported yesterday that Israel is now trying to get our country to attack Iran.
*The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran’s nuclear programs – by force if necessary – because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday. *
washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm

If removing Saddam was the problem we should not still there after Saddam is long gone from power.
 
Debunkerman:

As bad as Mubarak has been, he is in a completely different league from Saddam Hussein, and most people know that.

Mubarak hasn’t done the things that Hussein has, or on anywhere near the scale Hussein has or for the purpose that Hussein did.

I can differentiate the 2 in extreme detail, but there’s not enough room on the post.

The two just don’t compare - Mubarak has shown that he can be reformed, but Hussein has demonstrated that he can’t.

Are you denying these to be the facts?
40.png
Debunkerman:
You would be wrong to conclude that I would prefer Hosni Mubarak continue torturing people because I do not favor invading and occupying Egypt.

You stated that Saddam paid those that “slaughtered Jewish men women and Children in Israel” and you stated that the Israeli Mossad knows about the WMDs. Then perhaps Israel should have invaded and occupied Iraq rather than our service men and women. Why aren’t the Israeli troops in Iraq since we have armed them to the teeth? Israel has the most powerful army in the region and our “ally” is AWOL from the “coalition of the willing.”

Our government gave weapons to Saddam and Israel, but unlike Israel, Iraq did not attack the USS Liberty and kill our servicemen. Israel attacked our ship and killed our men and nothing is done. Our men and women in the armed services deserve better. We should defend our men.
ussliberty.org/

The Washington Times reported yesterday that Israel is now trying to get our country to attack Iran.
*The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran’s nuclear programs – by force if necessary – because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday. *
washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm

If removing Saddam was the problem we should not still there after Saddam is long gone from power.
As people who know anything about the ME know, any invasion by the “Zionist Entity” of any Arab nation, no matter how justified, would be met with extreme violence by both the Arab and the Muslim worlds. We’re trying to provide Muslims with an alternative to their usual menu of thugocratic secular dictatorships and theocratic religious dictatorships in the hope that Arab people will demand and get better from their governments.

Having Israel invade Iraq and causing a confligration between Israel and the West on the one hand and the Arab and Islamic worlds on the other hand is nothing that any sane or rational person wants. It was for that reason that, except for things which could be plausibly denied, Israel had to be left out of the “Coalition of the Willing”.

This actually hurt us - We could have used the Arabic translators and the experts on terrorism and such like. But, we couldn’t risk making this conflict into a War between the West and Islam - That’s what Osama and friends want, because then it becomes 1.3 Billion Arabs and Muslims v. some 800 million not highly dedicated Westerners.

History has shown that it usually takes from 4 to 7 years to replace any government with a functioning representative government. We could have more quickly replaced Hussein with another dictator and gone home, but, Bush promised the Iraqi people a representative government. Don’t you think he should at least try to keep his promise?

Regarding the Liberty Incident, It happened some 38 years ago after President Johnson and the Joint Chief’s made some fairly suspicious decisions. Israel apologized and made restitution. That really should be the end of the story.

I’ve corresponded with the only person who actually put people under oath in the month following the incident.

The Liberty Incident is something that Judeophobes like to bring up in order to bash Israel. I sincerely hope that this isn’t the case now.

I have to admit that your lack of sensitiviely to the victims of the Homicide Bombers whose families Hussein paid off has made me wonder as well. I also hope that I’m mistaken on this as well.

The Iranian Mullahs have made repeated oaths and Fatwas that they will make nuclear weapons and that the first two shall be used on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. At the same time, we’ve restained Israel from doing anything about the 15 Nuclear Breeder Plants (designed to make Plutonium for nuclear bombs) which Russia built for Iran, again because of fear of the conflagration detailed above.

How would you feel if the Mullahs, because of the world’s inaction and our restraining of Israel, were able to carry out those Oaths and fatwas and nuke Tel Aviv and Jerusalm during Passover/Orthodox Easter?

Wouldn’t you wish that we had done something to make sure the Mullahs didn’t get those nuclear weapons?

Pax Vobiscum, Michael
 
dc dave:
Traditional Ang:
convert_2000:

The most telling conversation I had was with a self-described “Leftist” and “Left-Winger”. This was in the month before SecState Powell had gone to the United nations with the Intelligence from several Intelligence agancies about Saddam Hussein.

Might the writer be referring to the speech that Powell has since referred to–quite appropriately, I might add–as a “blot on his record” because of its high fiction content? abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm
It is also wrong to imply that only left wingers are opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The most cogent criticism I have read comes from conseratives like Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, and Joseph Sobran.

See antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=7465 , antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7282 , sobran.com/columns/2005/050301.shtml for a small sample of their anti-war writings.

dc dave:

It seemed that it was only “Leftists” who said they didn’t care what happened to the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. The only people who gave me that response were “Leftists”.

Most of the Conservatives who opposed the war were either worried about the cost and how we were going to pay for it or worried about what what happen when people such as you opposed the war as you are doing now. But I don’t think I ever got a reaction out of any conservative, even one who opposed the war, like the one I got out of the “Leftist”.

I never spoke with Pat Buckanon, but he was kicked out of the GOP and the Conservative Movement, so he doesn’t count.

Are you denying that anything I’ve said about Hussein is true?

Hussein’s WMD were taken to Syria:

Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria - DEBKAfile Exclusive Report and Analysis
February 2, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
debka.com/article.php?aid=780

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004
*Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are: *
2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
New evidence: Saddam’s WMD in Lebanon
Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley

Posted: May 20, 2004 - 5:00 p.m. Eastern
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581

Saddam’s WMDs are in Syria
Posted: June 29, 2004 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39182

MEIC - Mystery Ships Thought to Contain Iraqi WMD
2003-02-18 22:49:46

middleeastinfo.org/article1978.html

The Means to Make the Poisons Came From the West
By Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz
The New York Times
April 13, 2003, pp. wk 5
iraqwatch.org/suppliers/Iraq-oped-nyt-2003.htm

Dead scientist revealed Iraq dirty bomb
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957363/posts

Evidence of WMD plotting found in Iraq
By David Rennie and George Jones
(Filed: 01/08/2003)
tinyurl.com/ir1w

Clinton believed Iraq had WMD
papillonsartpalace.com/clinnton.htm

I hope these links puts the issue of WMDs to rest. There are more where they came from. You may disagree with what President Bush decided to to, but I really believe that you cannot say that he did not have a reasonable belief that Hussein had WMD, the desire to use them, and, because of his connections with Al-Queda (I also have links for that), the means to deliver them anywhere he wanted.

If President Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, and Osama’s delivery service had successfully delivered some of the weapons mentioned in the links above to American cities, I’m sure that many Democrats in Congrees and many in your camp would have blamed President Bush for allowing the terrorists to slaughter the American people with the material provied by Saddam Hussein.

The President is responsible for the security of the American people, and then he’s responsible to insure that the countries we’ve had to go to war with are able to be good citizens of the world.

Woodrow Wilson didn’t do that after GFermany was defeated in WW I, and we got WW II. Truman did that after we defeated Italy, Germany and Japan. I hope you notice that none of the 3 have started any wars since.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Debunkerman:

As bad as Mubarak has been, he is in a completely different league from Saddam Hussein, and most people know that.

Mubarak hasn’t done the things that Hussein has, or on anywhere near the scale Hussein has or for the purpose that Hussein did.
I do not think you see my point. I am not comparing cruel dictators (some are our allies). My point is it would be incorrect to conclude that a failure to support the invasion of Iraq necessarily meant that one did not oppose Saddam. Nor does not follow that countries not invading and occupying Zimbabwe therefore approve of Robert Mugabe.
Traditional Ang:
As people who know anything about the ME know, any invasion by the “Zionist Entity” of any Arab nation, no matter how justified, would be met with extreme violence by both the Arab and the Muslim worlds.
That is the problem in Palestine. Do you think the Arab and Muslim world do not know of U.S. support for Israel?
Traditional Ang:
Bush promised the Iraqi people a representative government. Don’t you think he should at least try to keep his promise?
No. And I don’t think he should have made the promise.
Traditional Ang:
Regarding the Liberty Incident, It happened some 38 years ago after President Johnson and the Joint Chief’s made some fairly suspicious decisions. Israel apologized and made restitution. That really should be the end of the story.

I’ve corresponded with the only person who actually put people under oath in the month following the incident.

The Liberty Incident is something that Judeophobes like to bring up in order to bash Israel. I sincerely hope that this isn’t the case now.
Our veteran surviving crewmembers of the USS Liberty do not agree with you. The Report of War Crimes committed against U.S. military personnel was submitted to the Secretary of the Army June 8, 2005. ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf
Does this make the surviving crewmembers of the USS Liberty “Judeophobes”? Please define the label Judeophobe and explain why you are calling me this name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top