Anti-war protesters target wounded
Seems some anti-war demonstrators will stop at nothing:
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.”
I was under the impression that these people were anti-war at least in part because they felt for the soldiers who were suffering in an ‘unjust’ war. Not according to Kevin Pannell’s experience. He was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad:
Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
“We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever,” Pannell, a member of the Army’s First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
To even things up a little there’s a conservative counter-demonstration:
“[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House,” said Nina Burke. “The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate.”
Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that “it’s very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable … I feel disgusted”.
It’s hard not to feel that at least some parts of the anti-war movement glory in American dead and wounded.

What could possibly be achieved by activity so lacking in compassion and humanity.
Rational thinking cap on.
Excellent media to discredit the genuine anti-war
view.
Who are these people I wonder.
I have seen it all before many times.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 27, 2005 @ 9:27 pm
If you click on the link in the post you’ll see one of the protest groups is Code Pink - Women for Peace.
Now if I read you correctly - and I accept I could be wrong because you rarely state anything - this is a conspiracy to credit the anti-war movement.
Which means this Code Pink organisation is a government outfit?
GM
Comment by Gary Monro — August 29, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
“Government Outfit” is overstating my point.
Code Pink provides the “ugly” face of opposition to the war policy. This serves the war agenda by discrediting a more reasoned and compassionate view. It links opposition with collectivism and communism.
On the surface it appears to be anti “Capitalist”, anti establishment, but the collectivist argues that private ownership should be abolished.
This assists the policy of Monopoly.
The global state is the ultimate monopoly system yet is sold as a defence against corporate monopoly.
It is one policy with two heads.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 30, 2005 @ 5:51 am
Mr Brooks,
So what is the source of this Code Pink organisation? Are they neocons in disguise? Out of work actors?
Is there an intent to serve the war agenda or are their services to the war agenda purely accidental?
GM
Comment by Gary Monro — August 30, 2005 @ 6:06 am