# Go Grandma...



## cncguns (Dec 15, 2007)

A buddy sent me this today...:smt082

Here's a quote from a government employee who witnessed a recent interaction between an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a Metro station in DC:

"There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one. An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined." 



The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq?' 


The old woman looked up at her and said, Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea, and a son in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth our country. If you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it. ' "

God Bless America & Grandmas!


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

LMAOROTF! I sure hope that's true!!!!!:anim_lol::anim_lol:


----------



## Steve (Jan 2, 2008)

sooo.. I guess she only has an issue with free speech being the opposite of what she believes huh....

Anti War doesnt mean anti american, I never understood that

The other thing that is funny, is that most people that are pro war put a bumper sticker on their card, Anit war protesters get critizied for trying to do something.......Ok flame on:smt1099
also I really dont think vietnam, korea, or WW II, had anything to do with our freedom of speech, did I miss something???? old people vote though


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

..........or maybe it was just a personal thing since she had lost family?? (if true). Ya' know, free speech does not mean you have to like what the other person says. Oh well...............and yeah, in my weird opinion, you may have missed something.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Yea your missing something. If it wasn't for the USA's victory in WWII you would be speaking German right now. Nam and Korea were more of what they called police actions. Free speech is a two way street and she had every right to her statement as did the others. What's with the bumper sticker deal? I don't see them in my area that much. Most are anti-war. Jeeez.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Since North Vietnam, North Korea, and Nazi Germany were soooooo all about free-speech...

Yeah. I'd say they were ALL about free speech, and elections, and religion, and the right to bear arms. If not directly for us, for the rest of the world, suffering under the tyranny of those who would oppress that free speech, or otherwise free people.

If you do not believe that your constitutional rights, and those included in the bill of rights, including the right to bear arms, are protected for by the might of the United States Military, what we currently fight for, and what we have fought for in the past... then you are sadly ill-informed.

If you think that removing our current presence from the Middle East will not result in an INCREASE in domestic attacks on that freedom you enjoy, you are also ill-informed, if not, just a dreamer.

MUCH better that we confront an enemy intent on the destruction of our freedoms, and our way of life (since freedom of speech is SOOO well tolerated in Fundamentist Muslim culture, like the Nazi and the communist system, before it) with a 100% VOLUNTEER force, in THEIR back yard, than we do so with innocent civilians in ours. 

She was 100% correct.

JeffWard, Capt USAF (former)


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Baldy and Jeff.............well said, much better than I. :smt023


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Well Steve, I read it that the Old Lady didn't like people grabbing on her. The young one is fortunate she didn't get the umbrella over the head then up the back side. 

Grab hold of me and you are likely to find yourself on the floor hurting NOT ROTFLYAO.

You can be ungratefull if you wish but if a bunch of people hadn't joined and fought to preserve this country you would be bitching in a different language as would people in a few other places.

If the cowards had prevailed in the 40's you would probably be speaking German or Japanese and French would most certainly be an "Ancient Language".

Have a good day while you can.

:smt1099

.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2008)

Steve:

She made quite a personal sacrifice so the protestors had the right to say what they wished and she acknowledged their right. What she objected to was the hand on the shoulder. I can't blame her for that or find fault with her reaction. What I do have an issue with is your Clintonian rewrite of the facts. She did not object to their right just their attempt to brainwash her with the same old hogwash and the invasion of her personal space.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

Steve, I suppose whenever someone says something offensive to you, you greet them warmly and thank them for exercising their first amendment rights? Free speech does not guarantee that everyone shall agree with you and like what you have to say.

If she had an relative in the American Revolution, would it be alright for her to disagree with the protester?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

While I have my doubts about its truthfulness, it's a good story. Note that the older woman "politely declined" the pamphlet, and only reacted harshly when the protester laid hands on her. I think the older woman's reaction was restrained. I certainly wouldn't be so polite if some granola put their hands on me without my permission.

That said, I don't think any of the wars since WWII have been about freedom for Americans, including the current campaigns. The current conflict in Afghanistan is (or at least was) about protecting the physical security of Americans, so we don't suffer another 9/11. Neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda have the ability to conquer America and take our liberty from us.

I no longer see a relationship between Iraq and American security, since the WMD question has long since been resolved, and I never saw a link between Iraq and American liberty. The same can largely be said for Vietnam and Korea.

These latter wars boil down to the question of fighting for the liberty of non-Americans. Some think it is worthwhile, others do not. I think there are some good points on both sides. I do think it is easier to support fighting for other people when you don't personally have to do the fighting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2008)

Liberity can be defined in different ways. Certainly neither of the countries mentioned have the capability to invade the US or probably many other countries for that matter. After 911 there was a feeling of anger that swept over the country but with that was also the fear of another attack. This fear took wealth away from this country in the form of initially lower stock prices and over the long term higher oil prices. I have heard estimates of $20-25 a BBL built in to the price of oil as a terrorist premium (essentially our funding of the terrorists). I feel as many do if we hadn't taken the fight to the terrorists they would be back in this country. If they had successfully carried off another attack (or more) the fear that prevailed post 911 would have been amplified to the point that I would question if you live in constant fear are you really free?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Fear is one thing. Our reaction to it is another. But it's rather simplistic to look at the situation as, "The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms!"

Anyway, we Americans have taken more liberty from ourselves than al-Qaeda ever could. Look at how we have hammered away at the First and Fourth Amendments since 9/11. We have taken from ourselves what al-Qaeda could never take.

Anyway, the overall caliber of the insurgents over here is fairly low. Most of them are illiterate, extremely poor with few resources, and borderline incompetent as fighters. There is just no way they could "follow us to America" in any great numbers. That would be like expecting some hillbillies from West Virginia to mount an independent invasion of South Africa.

Granted, oil is a resource we absolutely need at the present time. We need to work on weaning ourselves off Middle Eastern oil, if only for our national security. While I was on leave, I sold my SUV and bought a little high-MPG treehugger Honda car. It's only a little step, but I am sick of good young men dying over here so that stock prices can remain high and Middle Eastern oil prices low (not that the latter is working, anyway).


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Fear is one thing. Our reaction to it is another. But it's rather simplistic to look at the situation as, "The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms!"


All good points. The terrorists hate us because we're doing exactly what we've been doing since the 30s: meddling in their affairs. And that's not to say that if we left tomorrow and never dealt with those countries again, the terrorists would go away. Fear is a very effective weapon, and it has been used throughout human history in various forms. If the U.S. were not a target, it'd be someone else; there are so many factions and ethnic groups in the Middle East that someone's always a target; Turks would kill Kurds, Sunnis would kill Shiites, and so it goes.

However, reactions based on fear may be wrong, but they are human. The first question asked when something bad happens is, "how do we stop this happening again?" You are afraid that because it happened once, it can happen again. There are worse emotions to base a reaction on; vengeance, anger, hatred, etc. Those are the emotions of terrorists, and similar emotions run high here.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Liko81 said:


> All good points. The terrorists hate us because we're doing exactly what we've been doing since the 30s: meddling in their affairs. And that's not to say that if we left tomorrow and never dealt with those countries again, the terrorists would go away. Fear is a very effective weapon, and it has been used throughout human history in various forms. If the U.S. were not a target, it'd be someone else; there are so many factions and ethnic groups in the Middle East that someone's always a target; Turks would kill Kurds, Sunnis would kill Shiites, and so it goes.
> 
> However, reactions based on fear may be wrong, but they are human. The first question asked when something bad happens is, "how do we stop this happening again?" You are afraid that because it happened once, it can happen again. There are worse emotions to base a reaction on; vengeance, anger, hatred, etc. Those are the emotions of terrorists, and similar emotions run high here.


I must disagree. Muslims hate us because we are not Muslims. They will kill every last non-Muslim they can untill they have complete world domination/damnnation.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> I must disagree. Muslims hate us because we are not Muslims. They will kill every last non-Muslim they can untill they have complete world domination/damnnation.


Some of them do indeed feel that way, and they occasionally try to kill me. But most do not. I know lots of Muslims here who are just regular Joes (well, okay, regular Abduls and Farids) trying to get by, feed their families, keep their houses warm, and live in peace. They are terribly poor and pathetic and uneducated with some very odd ideas, but most of them don't hate us at all. If anything, they admire America and desperately want Afghanistan to be more like our country, which they see as a land of opportunity and plenty.

Anyway, our opponents here have nothing close to the resources or skill necessary to dominate the world. I agree that their strict interpretation of Islam is toxic. The more moderate Muslims I described above are far less strict in their interpretation of Islam, though they are still generally far more religious than the average American. They are far more afraid of the Taliban/al-Qaeda - who are some pretty flippin' scary people - than they are sympathizers with radicalism.

The serious threat to America (and the West) from Islam isn't terrorism. It's simple population trends.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Liko81 said:


> All good points. The terrorists hate us because we're doing exactly what we've been doing since the 30s: meddling in their affairs.


II think you give them to much credit. How can you say we are a target due to our meddling and then say these idiots would attack someone else if they were not attacking us? 
So it's OUR fault they attack us, but their fault for attacking others?

They are under developed uneducated uncivilized animals living in a different age. They are trying to force their will on others through killing and maiming. It has nothing to do with our meddling.

If a dog attacks you, kill it. It's not your fault; it's the dog's fault.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Steve said:


> sooo.. I guess she only has an issue with free speech being the opposite of what she believes huh....
> 
> Anti War doesnt mean anti american, I never understood that
> 
> ...


Interesting. Odd that two people can read the same posting and see a completely different problem. I read "politely declined" and then the protester becoming insistent to the point of detaining the person she is trying to speak to. 
You read a trampling of the protesters free speech.
At what point is the old lady allowed to exercise her freedom of speech? Would you have been so quick to judge if she had simply said get your fricking hands off of me? Are you insisting that she not qualify her reasoning for not wanting to listen? 
While the protester has the freedom of speech, she does not have the right to force people to listen.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Highly unlikely to be true. This story has been going around for some time now (first heard it around 5 years ago) and in multiple forms (different facts). The early versions only had her husband dying in a war. Now it has expanded to THREE members of her family.

I'm a hard skeptic and an ace at picking up scams and bs stories.....this one sets off my alarms.


----------



## cncguns (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm sure it never happened...There are a bunch of these rumors floating around out there...

I wish it were true though...:smt1099


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

May not be true but I know people who, given the opportunity, would certainly say something like that.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Old Padawan said:


> II think you give them to much credit. How can you say we are a target due to our meddling and then say these idiots would attack someone else if they were not attacking us?
> So it's OUR fault they attack us, but their fault for attacking others?


While I think Rep. Ron Paul is a strange dude, I think his point about "blowback" from the Arab/Persian world is pretty accurate. It's not as if we were sitting around minding our own business in North America when 9/11 happened. We have a long history (going back to the 1930s, at least) of a presence in the Middle East. We have chosen sides, propped up dictators, invented artificial countries, stationed troops, and generally meddled in the affairs of other people for many decades.

Perhaps all this was completely necessary for American/Western security (the spice, after all, must flow), but it would be foolish to think that somewhere out there, someone wouldn't eventually get pissed about this. He did, his name is Osama bin Laden, and he has some friends.



> They are under developed uneducated uncivilized animals living in a different age. They are trying to force their will on others through killing and maiming. It has nothing to do with our meddling.


Actually, I think it is _exactly_ the response their interpretation of Islam demands of them. Would they have eventually tried to convert America to Islam by jihad anyway? Maybe, but since we are doing nothing to stop the demographic/immigration trends toward Islam and away from the West, the conversion attempt is going to happen whether we fight them or not. Unfortunately, we have done little to prepare for the ideological/philosophical battle.



> If a dog attacks you, kill it. It's not your fault; it's the dog's fault.


Agreed, and I like your analogy.

But do you kill the other dog two doors down because you thought he had big teeth? What if you then found out you were mistaken, and he was actually a toothless dog? Do you stay in his yard and let his puppies chew off your toes while you try to build him a new doghouse? Do you kill the puppies because they _might_ grow teeth and come to your yard in a year?

What if the dog who attacked you looked just like a dozen other dogs in the same yard? How do you figure out which dog to kill? Or do you just kill all the dogs because they look like the one who bit you?

Or maybe the dog who bit you is hiding in another yard, and you chase him out of that yard. He goes to another to hide and practice his biting techniques. Do you follow him through every yard in the neighborhood, even if the owners of the yards don't give you permission? What if the dogs in the other yards, who would have left you alone otherwise, get mad because you are trespassing and join the first dog?


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

You over complicate the issue Mike. Just kill all the dogs that don't belong to yourself or your friends and be done with it. Let the God of Dogs sort them out. :numbchuck:

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> You over complicate the issue Mike.


Maybe. But it was simplistic thinking that got us into our current predicament of a multiple-fronted war without end.

Anyway, I know too many decent Afghans to advocate indiscriminately killing all Muslims (not that any serious person is advocating that).


----------

