Cindy Sheehan. American Terrorist??
914688
Taking into account that she is a grieving mother, her son probably wouldn't want her to put herself through all this BS.  She needs to see a therapist.\n\nEnough already Cindy!  No one is listening anymore.
259966
by any means necessary !... these are terrorist  , not an army engaged in warfare with us.. they  do not deserve or are entitled to the  Geneva convention rights that are extended in war time. how do they interrogate the ones that they capture ???   BY CUTTING OFF THEIR HEADS !..   I don't recall that method of being part of the Geneva convention ... do you ??... so here we are  treating them  with   respect  and getting  no information  while they use any cruel means they choose  and does the media   focus on that?? no..these are criminals ,  not soldiers, and  these crimes  do not come under are justice system, they are not entitled to a lawyer or legal procedures  that  exist in our country..  these crimes are not taking place in our country.. if they were  then  they would be entitled   to and   fall under our legal system. its easy to judge   our soldiers based on  what the media chooses to report, with out actually being there ,  and experiencing what they go thru on a daily basis   while they are  attacked  by  these terrorists living in a country they are  there to help.Im not saying we should be as sick or as cruel as they are to us, because we are above that... but  we should have more freedom  to interrogate them  with out the media sitting on their shoulders and making judgements they have no right to do ( back seat driving ! )....that being said...  we should send hilary clinton over there and make them listen to her  presidential campaign speeches   she  is most likely writing..... that would  be cruel and unusual punishment for me ! lol....
129839
I don't know where you got that thought.  Americans dont think that all Iranians are terrorists any more than we think all Muslims are terrorists.  There is however a relationship the other way around -- much of the terrorist activity is currently being perpetrated by individuals that happen to be muslim.
297346
Depends on who's defining  the terrorism.The forefathers of the USA were considered terrorists  by the English...
147997
This is actually to rebuke what v_aaragorn  has said. He is looking for sources on the questioners question. I have a few listed here. These all document the threat that Iran is to the US and to the free world\nhttp://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1705\nhttp://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/10/29/irans_threat/\nhttp://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/shamkhami_threats_19804.shtml\n\nHere is a link detailing some of the illegal tactics of the Iranian Gov. against it's people who are not Muslim.\nhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/bahai_educators.htm\n\nAlso from reading the comments from the poster it is very obvious that this person is not Iranian or in Iran at this time. I actually have a gentlemen sitting next to me who is a political refugee in this country from Iran because he is not Muslim, he is Bahi. He and his escaped Iran so that they wouldn't be arrested/beaten for there religious beliefs.
86545
Yes, I do. Don't forget that these terrorists are raised from birth to hate westerners in general and Americans in particular. They are shown videos of Americans dying from a very young age in the madrassas. They are conditioned to believe that if you die in jihad, it is an instant ticket to heaven.\n\nNow what I am going to say next may seem a bit offensive to Americans, but it is not meant to be. In order to beat the terrorists, we have to start understanding them ... we have to start thinking like them. To a terrorist, conducting warfare as they do is not cowardly. It is cowardly by western standards, but not by eastern standards. Terror has been a part of Asian warfare for thousands of years. And this is not the first time Americans have seen these tactics. The Viet Cong used them first against France and then against the United States to beat both countries. Suicide bombers, roadside bombs, combatants dresses as civilians ... talk to any Viet Nam combat vet and they will tell you.\n\nAnd don't forget this, either: Back in the 1770s, our Founding Fathers were considered terrorists. They adapted a lot of tactics from the Indians which was unknown to European armies. We could not win in a face-to-face stand up fight, so we fought "dirty" - at least by the standards of the day.
1097589
I would like to say how completely outraged I am with the New York Times.  When they reveal secret programs aimed at finding terrorist, they put my husband, a US Marine, and the men and women serving with him, at risk.  They don't have a right to endanger my husband's life more than it is.  I agreed with Mr. Daly (on the O'Reilly Factor Friday night) when he said that in order to have liberty we must have secret programs.  Thanks to the left wing media, a secret program is now considered to be a cover-up and dangerous to our civil liberties.  As far as a I am concerned, the left wing is just as bad as the terrorist at the moment.  Shame on the New York Times and all the papers that revealed this program.  God bless America and God bless our troops.
1005944
The one who blows stuff up with bombs is a terrorist.\n\nNow note carefully:  I did not make any distinction between one who sets an IED at a roadside, and one that drops a bomb out of a plane.\n\nThe distinction is in the intent, and desired results, not the method of delivery.\n\nTerrorists hurt people for the sake of making a statement.  And I will admit there are times where you have to fight a government on unconventional terms.  But you better be ready for the consequences when you do so, because you are going to get them.\n\n---\n\nSince someone asked me about it by e-mail...\n\nI did not mean to say our troops are terrorists.  They are not.  We have them in a difficult situation, doing a difficult job, and I have a lot of respect for them and what they are going through.\n\nWhat I meant to be saying there is that the people who sent them, ie- Bush and Rumsfield and Cheney, the ones who decided we did not need to observe the Geneva Convention any more, that we can jail people forever, and have the right to torture them,  THOSE people I put on close to the same level as the terrorists.  They are bringing us down to that level.\n\nI fully support our troops, and am frankly in awe about how many of them are doing their job after this period of time.  And yes, there are a couple that have not.  But the vast majority are holding up a lot better than I think I could in that situation.\n\n-Dio
1173441
I am fairly conservative...but I can't stand her. She is mean and a big mouth. Just google what she says about 9/11 widows...( it is too mean to even repeat here)
1092194
yes.\n\nbut alas free speech...hate speach but free speach none the less.....heres a great watch dog group that puts her in check.\n\nhttp://mediamatters.org\n\nThe church she says she goes to has dissmissed her,\nShe is either a virgin because of her devotness cause shes not married or a hypocritical whore......\n\n\nAttacking the widows of 9/11 or fallen soliders, is what they want and she gives it to them....and they defend it.\n\nHell i just waiting for her to drop the N bomb (Ni@@a), and her supports to say we were all thinkin it.....
448473
I love this guy! The conservatives have been a little tricky on these pages the last few days man. For some reason they don't like people illustrating the truth to other Americans. So since Bush's, Brian Doyle the (Chester Molester) was implementing the Patriot Act on his 14 year old girl suspect, inside of the United States of America. I think that Nixon taking his punishment like a man, makes him look like ST. Michael.
609287
What a fool you are bryangarita. You have absolutely no idea do you? You don't know what it is like when bombs are going off in your city centres and in your Railway stations do you? We lived with the spectre of the provisional IRA and the INLA for years in Britain - and those of us who were of Irish catholic descent were looked upon with suspicion, banged up by the coppers and fitted up. So please get a life and grow up. It is never right to abuse people, NEVER.
848269
It makes me sick,the woman has called him Hiltler publically and people think its President Bush that doesnt want to work with the libs?Would you want to work with someone that called you the most horrible human being that ever existed??Not me,I would say they could all go to hell.They will pursue impeachment attempts altho they have no grounds for it..,if they want to use no wmd's,guess they after to go after Clinton,Kerry and Kennedy who all said Saddam was a threat and we should go to war in Iraq.
1107877
Crap crap crap.Why the hell are we wasting time on this broad?\nShe shows up in a cocktail dress to bash widows.Basket case.\n\nDownright nasty? Why yes.Even O'Reilly laid into her(I bet that's the only way she could get iT!!) No pun intended.\n\nIf you look in Coulter's eyes,you're like"What a ----".Most men agree with this one.Some women are just evil.\n\nInteresting that shes a "conservative".That says it all.
1061179
Tisk Tisk Tisk.\nPoor Ann is so mis-understood. In regards the Jersey Girls, I heard someone say that Ann attacked their personal tragedies. Oops - Liberal slip up! Ann attacked the right of the Jersey Girls to hide behind their status as widows. Big difference. It is typical of the Liberal argument and exactly Anns point. Liberals hide behind the 'untouchables' to avoid rational discussion. Conservatives desire rational national debate. I've said it a hundred times: Liberals fear being seen for who they are and what they believe. The Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan are just two examples of 'untouchables'. Or at least they were until Ann refuted that myth. Point, set, match Ann Coulter!
1158702
Cindy Sheehan, what an embarrassment she would be to her dead son, Casey Sheehan. Her loss is tragic. But to behave as she is doing is to dishonor what her son did.\n\nSince she was first impressed with her meeting with President Bush, then later, condemned him...for publicity's sake... I no longer consider her opinions worthwhile. Too two faced for me...she is only seeking attention:\n \nSheehan and other military families met with President George W. Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Washington, nearly three months after her son's death. In a June 24, 2004 interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she stated that President Bush was "...sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."  She also added that he had given her back the "gift of happiness."\n\nOn July 4, 2005 she was again interviewed by a local paper in Fort Lewis, Washington, regarding her meeting with President Bush, this time describing it as "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." \n\nCindy Sheehan has taken her talking points from sources such as Michael Moore, MoveOn.org. \n\nEnough said!
65058
What exactly is your definition of terrorist.\n\nDOD defines it as follows: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. \n\n"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear" <-- The US broke international law. Yeah Yeah I know, The US does not need anyone's permission to go to war, but let us be literal with the definition.\n\n"intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."   <--Intimidate governments(pre-emptive strikes)  Ideological goals <--bring democracy.\n\nOr are you referring to those other people that the government and media can't make up their mind on what to call them? Terrorist or Insurgent.\n\nDOD defines insurgent as follows: Member of a political party who rebels against established leadership. \n\nEvery dissenter here would then be an insurgent. Or shall we get explicit on what exactly rebel means. \n\nMaybe we should ask how many American terrorists (only following orders from command) have killed Arabs.\n\n\n\n***alexbharris*** It is not a matter of being an apologist. Your reasoning is illogical. You justify dropping bombs on a nations to rid the nation of murderers, rapists and torturers? Saddam was not the worst dictator. That war is based on lies and close minded sheep keep coming up with different excuses as to why we are there. Why not drop a bomb or two on Uzbekistan, or in the Sudan. Or how about the United States. Did you happen to read the article or two about CIA and Army Intel officers torturing prisoners. Or how about imprisoning people for years with not only due process, but no charges. This war is all about the 'ism!!\n\nImperialism! Capitalism! Materialism!!! Racism!!!   What statistics did the common person keep on Arabs before all this happened. It is at minimum, a subtle form of racism!\n\n\nhttp://www.darkwingbird.com/bombs-away4.wmv