Father of son who died in Iraq beaten by pro-war hate mongers "Gathering of Eagles"

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Hate-monger?

Yeah. I think it's an accurate description of this group considering their actions both during and after the event.

Originally Posted by JaJae

He provoked someone to attack him? He instigated the event, sure. But provoked someone to attack him?

So stealing a picture of someone's son who died in the war in Iraq off a coffin memorializing him isn't a provocation?

Originally Posted by JaJae

He wasn't assaulted? It appears he did the assaulting. Hate mongers?

The eyewitnesses and pictures tell the story. He defended himself after 5 or 6 of them attacked him for trying to get the picture of his son back.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Their pathetic story? As in the one that seems to illustrate exactly what the pictures show? Two guys bloodied up after being attacked by a man.

Yeah, I find it pathetic that they characterize stealing a picture of a guys son who died in Iraq as "liberating" the picture, and attempt to justify it. Maybe you're cool with that, I'm not.

I also find it pathetic that they attempt to justify their attack on him by using his emotional distress after the death of his son to paint him as having instigated the incident, when the guy admits to thievery.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Shocked as well.

I am sure if this guy wasn't participating in a rally against the war it might be a different story. Lets say guy is at a pro war rally. A bunch of anti-leftist hate the war folk were yelling at him and then stole his sons picture who died in the war off his memorial. The guy tackled one of them to get it back. 5 or 6 anti war leftist folk jumped the guy when he tried to get his possession back.

I can guarantee you we would not be having this conversation right now.

Exactly. I'd personally feel exactly the same way I do regardless of what side the guy was on, but I guess some people are so invested in ideology they're willing to defend stuff like this.. but I find it absolutely disgusting especially because of the reaction coming from the crowd who went batshit insane over what MoveOn.org said and demanded all kinds of apologies and denunciations from the Congress.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

My emotional state would not include torching government property and carry around caskets to rallies. In fact, since he's probably the only person in the country to ever do such a thing that I'm aware of I think it's fair to say he's gone a bit overboard.

And you know this because you've lost how many children in the war in Iraq again? How many children in total?

You can't know, and saying that you do is dishonest at best. Everyone deals with grief differently, but until you're faced with something like this you can't know how you'd react..

I don't think losing a parent or other non-immediate family member is the same either..

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by motivez

You can't know, and saying that you do is dishonest at best. Everyone deals with grief differently, but until you're faced with something like this you can't know how you'd react..

Very well said. I agree no one can predict how they would react in that situation. Speculation at best.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah. I think it's an accurate description of this group considering their actions both during and after the event.



So stealing a picture of someone's son who died in the war in Iraq off a coffin memorializing him isn't a provocation?



The eyewitnesses and pictures tell the story. He defended himself after 5 or 6 of them attacked him for trying to get the picture of his son back.



Yeah, I find it pathetic that they characterize stealing a picture of a guys son who died in Iraq as "liberating" the picture, and attempt to justify it. Maybe you're cool with that, I'm not.

I also find it pathetic that they attempt to justify their attack on him by using his emotional distress after the death of his son to paint him as having instigated the incident, when the guy admits to thievery.

Wait a second, you're making all kinds of excuses for this guy attacking people for something that in NO way justified an attack. Yet you tried to roast several of us the other night for "Making excuses" for the eagles when no such excuses were made.

Now that there's evidence throwing this whole story into turmoil you're making excuses for an unjustified attack by an antiwar protestor who had a right to be mad about a PICTURE, but had NO right to physically attack someone.

Maybe there is some more to this story as more details seem to crop up each day, but this guy already has a shady past.

As for his son being dead, that sucks, but it does NOT justify inflicting harm on others, period and the fact that you keep using it to justify his actions like setting fire to government vehicles and attack people is downright ridiculous.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wait a second, you're making all kinds of excuses for this guy attacking people for something that in NO way justified an attack. Yet you tried to roast several of us the other night for "Making excuses" for the eagles when no such excuses were made.

I'm not making any excuses, I think his actions were justified given the circumstances, he bit some guy in self defense while being kicked in the head and otherwise beaten by members of this hate mongering group.. after going after one of them who has admitted he tried to "liberate" a picture of his son off his memorial because he disagreed with the politics of his father.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Now that there's evidence throwing this whole story into turmoil you're making excuses for an unjustified attack by an antiwar protestor who had a right to be mad about a PICTURE, but had NO right to physically attack someone.

The only new "evidence" is the statement by the guy who stole the picture of this mans son off his memorial, and it certainly was justified IMO.. if someone from a left wing organization went and stole a picture or item off a memorial for a fallen soldier from a parent who was pro-war, I'd feel exactly the same way.. but would you?

The left wing dude would have it coming to him if the parent went after him to get it back..

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Maybe there is some more to this story as more details seem to crop up each day, but this guy already has a shady past.

Emotional distress after his sons death isn't "shady"

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

As for his son being dead, that sucks, but it does NOT justify inflicting harm on others, period and the fact that you keep using it to justify his actions like setting fire to government vehicles and attack people is downright ridiculous.

He set fire to the vehicle while he was inside, not while other people were. Characterizing it as "firebombing government property" as was done earlier is pathetic

And I'm not saying his sons death justifies him attacking someone, but someone defacing his memorial by stealing things from it certainly is justification in my mind..

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wait a second, you're making all kinds of excuses for this guy attacking people for something that in NO way justified an attack. Yet you tried to roast several of us the other night for "Making excuses" for the eagles when no such excuses were made.

Now that there's evidence throwing this whole story into turmoil you're making excuses for an unjustified attack by an antiwar protestor who had a right to be mad about a PICTURE, but had NO right to physically attack someone.

Maybe there is some more to this story as more details seem to crop up each day, but this guy already has a shady past.

As for his son being dead, that sucks, but it does NOT justify inflicting harm on others, period and the fact that you keep using it to justify his actions like setting fire to government vehicles and attack people is downright ridiculous.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up his shady past? Bush has a shady past and we elected him?? His past has absolutely no bearing on the current situation.

Tackling a guy to get picture back is a bit different then getting hit and kicked by the Eagles group. He did bite someone which raised the level for him. The eagle folk were already hitting and kicking him when he was down at that point so maybe it was his only option since he was on the ground with 5 or 6 attackers over him.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Hm, so lets see here

1) Hate-monger thinks this guy doesn't have a right to carry a picture of his son around during the protest and steals it off the coffin, admits as much in his statement, yet characterizes it as "liberating the picture".. I wonder if this guy has a history of "liberating" other people's property from their possession?
2) Father runs after the guy and tackles him to get it back (something IMO that is reasonable considering the circumstances), while guy attempts to paint it as an 'unprovoked attack'
3) Father is then assaulted by 5 or 6 hate mongers, kicked in the head and beaten, and while in the process of being assaulted, bites someone in self defense

I'm completely shocked that the conservative folks are defending these guys and taking their pathetic story at face value despite the evidence and eyewitnesses. No, really.

error #1, "hate-monger"

[motivez]

Feel free to disagree with my characterization, having a different opinion is certainly your right

..but judging by their actions (and statements) I think it's an accurate description.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by 7960

error #1, "hate-monger"

How would you describe them?? Someone who is willing to steal for their cause and cause physical injury and violence?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not making any excuses, I think his actions were justified given the circumstances, he bit some guy in self defense while being kicked in the head and otherwise beaten by members of this hate mongering group.. after going after one of them who has admitted he tried to "liberate" a picture of his son off his memorial because he disagreed with the politics of his father.



The only new "evidence" is the statement by the guy who stole the picture of this mans son off his memorial, and it certainly was justified IMO.. if someone from a left wing organization went and stole a picture or item off a memorial for a fallen soldier from a parent who was pro-war, I'd feel exactly the same way.. but would you?

The left wing dude would have it coming to him if the parent went after him to get it back..



Emotional distress after his sons death isn't "shady"



He set fire to the vehicle while he was inside, not while other people were. Characterizing it as "firebombing government property" as was done earlier is pathetic

And I'm not saying his sons death justifies him attacking someone, but someone defacing his memorial by stealing things from it certainly is justification in my mind..

So despite evidence to the contrary, now there is evidence showing this guy violently attacked a member of the eagles and another member pulled him off and he subsequently got bit. But we'll just ignore that, right?

[motivez]

The evidence you keep citing is the statement by the tool who thought it was okay to "liberate" (read: steal) another person's property, and in the process disrespect a memorial to his son because he disagreed with the father's political views

He chased him down and tackled him to get the picture back, was accosted by 5 or 6 members of this group, and in the process of defending himself during/after being beaten and kicked in the head by these people, someone got bit.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Feel free to disagree with my characterization, having a different opinion is certainly your right

..but judging by their actions (and statements) I think it's an accurate description.

Are the thousands of anti-war protestors who were chanting against the police hate mongers as well? Or do we just call people who disagree with our political views hate mongers?

[motivez]

Seems like a subject for a different thread, but I don't know what they were saying or why they were saying it, so I can't really answer your question

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

So stealing a picture of someone's son who died in the war in Iraq off a coffin memorializing him isn't a provocation?

A provocation to a PHYSICAL attack? No.

The eyewitnesses and pictures tell the story. He defended himself after 5 or 6 of them attacked him for trying to get the picture of his son back.

Still pictures tell that story? Wow.

Yeah, I find it pathetic that they characterize stealing a picture of a guys son who died in Iraq as "liberating" the picture, and attempt to justify it. Maybe you're cool with that, I'm not.

No, I'm not. But I'm also not cool with charging someone from behind, throwing him to the ground, and sending him to the hospital for it.

ESPECIALLY seeing as he could NOT have felt physically threatened by the other guy taking the picture.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like a subject for a different thread, but I don't know what they were saying or why they were saying it, so I can't really answer your question

First of all the anti-war marchers promised threats of "widespread civil disobedience" before the rally. They arrive and roughly 3.5% of them got themselves arrested.

Police were out in force, and the pressure from behind was getting worse as the crowd screamed for . . . well, who knows, but they were angry.

After people started getting arrested, the crowd started chants regarding "pigs" and then started chanting "oink oink oink."

Yet somehow the small group of Eagles who I don't think have ever been arrested are the hate-mongers? A guy taking a picture of a fallen marine off a casket with an upside down flag is the hate-monger... what kind of biased bs crap is that?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

A provocation to a PHYSICAL attack? No.
Still pictures tell that story? Wow.
No, I'm not. But I'm also not cool with charging someone from behind, throwing him to the ground, and sending him to the hospital for it.

ESPECIALLY seeing as he could NOT have felt physically threatened by the other guy taking the picture.

Not to mention he lied about the picture being torn up. And his story comes off as watching a man in a crowd take his picture and tears it up, so he lunges into the crowd only to be beaten up by 5 men.

When in reality, one man took the picture off the casket and walked away. He charged over 20 feet and attacked an old man from behind. People who were probably very confused why an old man was being attacked were trying to get Carlos off the man. He then attacked the people trying to stop him from physically harming an old man. Then when it was all over one of the men Carlos attacked gave Carlos a hug and told off the crowd of anti-war protesters who were encouraging his violence. Yet THEY'RE the hate mongers. What a load of crap!