I just heard about the brave Canadian protesters (sarcasm) who terrorized an American hockey team. Seems they, including the coach, were booing, and threatening the children. They burned USA flags and other intimidations. I’m impressed. It’s amazing how violent the demonstrators of anti-violence can be.

What are they really protesting? It certainly is that not they are against violence. It seems to me that they simply hate the USA, to the point of attacking children.

<small>[ April 03, 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: zorweb ]</small>

So, now let's see how this goes. Something, as I recall, about 'freedom of speech', isn't it? Is there another clause about 'only when you agree with me' that I missed somehow?

As for Canadians 'terrorizing children', don't believe all you hear. The recent lady prisoner who was saved had been neither shot nor stabbed. You have to remember that this stressful time begets hysteria and try not to contribute to it.

You people do realize that it was your own country that armed AND trained both Saddam and Osama, don't you? It's a matter of public record, not a myth or rumour.

<small>[ April 05, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Merrie ]</small>

<small>[ April 05, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: getting better ]</small>

Hi Merrie,

Freedom of speech is great, I agree.

So, I beg to differ with you on some points you expressed.

According to recently released information Pvt. Jessica Lynch was shot twice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83288,00.html

Also the USA doesn't train terrorists, murderers or rapists. We are a nation of people that gives their lives for other's freedom. The USA does not desire to occupy foreign countries.

The USA does not manufacture Scud or Silkworm missiles. Haven't seen a T-72 tank around here in my lifetime either. So the USA has supplied them?

Those are the facts. Oh yeah, the USA has the death penalty but we don't feed people through wood chippers.

Yes, there is freedom of speech. Somehow, there are those who think that 1)it means that others are required to listen and 2)that no response is allowed. Responding to someone else's voiced opinion is NOT abridging another's freedom of speech.

Were the children terrorized? Dunno, I saw them interviewed and at the very least the adults who confronted them were rude, unthinking and cowardly. They verbalized their distaste for Americans to children. How much bravery or thought does that entail? Surely, booing and making rude comments is protected speech. But, is it civil and rational discourse? Is it adult behaviour? Were the parents modeling appropriate behaviour for their own children by verbally harrassing others? Are those behaviours towards children really defensible?

<small>[ June 04, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Lenz ]</small>

Merrie,

I understand where you are coming from.. Since it’s not a pretty picture of the way the children were treated in Canada we’ll just pretend it did not happen. And anyway, since the USA had something to do with Saddam and Osama we’ll just turn our heads to what happened to those kids... they must have deserved it anyway. You certainly do not seem willing to allow others their freedom of speech.

What happened in Canada to those children is neither myth nor rumor.

Until Private Lynch is able to speak for herself we will not know the extent of her wounds or what happened to her at the hands of the Iraqi regime. By the way, this morning the military, her docs, are saying that she did suffer wounds from small arm fire. The only way small arm fire causes broken bones is if a person is shot point blank.. you know the weapon right up against the limb. So either she was shot point blank or she was beaten to break those bones. Either are a form of torture.

We are exercising our freedom of speech here. So why are you putting this down? It is being done without threatening children, blocking the streets, preventing ambulances from reaching the emergency rooms and threatening people. Is it because you do not agree with many here?

The relationship between Saddam, Osama and the USA is a well-known one as you say. And it is often misrepresented in the manner you did to prove a point. Like you said, be very careful how you twist the truth.

The USA trained and helped thousands upon thousands of Afghani freedom fighters when the Soviet Union invaded their country. Osama, though a Saudi, was among those fighters. It was after the 1990-91 War in Kuwait that the Osama become polarized as a terrorist. Remember that the first Gulf War was a UN action, not a war started by the USA. Kuwait asked the UN and the USA for help as Iraq had invaded them. Canada was one of the many nations in that collision. Canadian troops fought in that war if you will recall. But Osama was angered that the USA was defiling his Arab/Islamic holy land. Additionally, Osama’s terrorist organization used to get much of it’s funding from Saudi sources.

In the 1980’s the USA sold Iraq with arms to protect itself from Iran. We did this because it was in the US interest to not have Iran engulf the entire Gulf region. Take a look at the map. For the record, the Soviet Union also provided Iraq with weapons and advisors. They have done so up until today. The Saudi government trained and helped the Iraqis. Do recall that in the Gulf War, most of the Iraqi military equipment was from the Soviet Union. Funny how people forget that. It’s one of the reasons they were so easy to defeat. Soviet equipment is greatly inferior to USA equipment.

Up to a few days ago France, Germany, Russia have all provided Sadam’s regime with weapons.. even against the UN sanctions.. no wonder those countries would not agree to go into Iraq. They did not want the world to find the boxes of ammunition with their names stenciled on the sides.

We could go a little further back into history and find that France and Britain had colonial ambitions in the Middle East for quite some time. They were the original colonial powers to start up this hornets nest we now have in the Middle East. Do not forget that it was the UN, backed by many European nations, who started Israel. There are few power nations of this world how have clean hands in this mess.

Saddam and Osama are not USA creations.

99.9% of the soldiers the USA helped in Afghanistan did not turn into megalomaniacs. A small handful did. Some of them became the Taliban. And one become the ‘shinning star’ Osama and his crew. The USA did not make them the insane people they are. Instead they used world events and support from many nations as a stepping-stone for their own life’s goals. Don’t forget they had free will in this. Don’t forget that forces such as the Soviet Union had a very big hand in these world events too. This is also not myth nor rumor.

By the way, do you drive a car? Do you use gasoline to fuel it? Then you, like the rest of us are funding terrorism. A percentage of all the money we spend our fuel goes to support terrorism. You see the Saudi government is one of the biggest funders of terrorism worldwide. They use their oil proceeds ( your money and mine) for this.

Twisting history to support your views does not change history. History has a way of repeating itself because people do not keep informed. They then accept any view given them by those who will use them for their own purposes.

-----

Yes this is about freedom of speech. No one here is saying that anyone does not have that right. This thread is a discussion of the appropriate way to respond when others are expressing their views in a belligerent manner.

In the USA each person is accorded freedom of speech, which means freedom to have our own opinions. It’s also about what is the appropriate way to respond under certain circumstances. With freedom of speech come the consequences of speaking out. Don’t forget, when a person expresses their mind, others will react. That is the other side of this freedom.

It’s one thing to state a view. It’s one thing to peacefully assemble to express a point of view. It’s quiet another to express a point of view using belligerence, rudeness, civil disobedience and criminal actions. Freedom of speech does not include civil disobedience and breaking laws. We have freedom of speech, not freedom to overthrow our government.

Open discussion of views is healthy. What I am finding is that many of those who are involved in the anti-war movement are loud and clear about their stance. They want everyone to listen to their point of view. But they do not want to engage in a discussion, simply to shout louder than anyone else. And to find that the protests have been backed and funded by organizations with the stated goals of overthrowing the USA makes me even more suspect of their point of view.

It also does not justify rude behavior. Though there is no law against rude behavior as I’m afraid it’s just too wide spread for that. And it tends to not destroy property or person. So we just put up with it or at the very least try to avoid it.

I would love to have some people to discuss these issues with, people on all sides of the fence, people who are truly knowledgeable about history and world events. Or at least people who are open to exchanging ideas and information so that we could all learn and make up our minds based on sound information. Not people who rely on sound bits for revised history. That is where true freedom of speech is exercised. Not by breaking the laws and being rude in the streets.

Those who express their views in that manner are finding out rather quickly that their form of ‘expression’ (read unlawful behavior) is not appreciated by most. This is not the free speech my father, my husband, my brothers nor I fought for. Most people are not listening to what they have to say… why? Because their delivery is so antagonistic and insulting that only the antagonism and insults are heard. It is their delivery that people are objecting to here…. Not so much what they are saying. I’ve yet to even hear a rational, intelligent discussion from that group.

A simple "I do not like war. It should be avoided at all costs" would be a welcome response. The most honest ones I’ve heard have said that they’d support it if a democratic president wanted to enter into the war. But they do not like President Bush and want to hurt the Republican Party so they oppose the war for political reasons. Direct honesty is a good thing. Instead all I mostly hear feeble attempts to twist history to fit their needs.

<small>[ June 05, 2003, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Eleonora ]</small>