The Bobcat Nation

'93HonoluluCat wrote:I don't care how you feel about military operations anywhere in the world. This is despicable.

geogfather wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:I don't care how you feel about military operations anywhere in the world. This is despicable.

While I completely agree with you, it looks at least on the surface, like this had nothing at all to do with the fact that they were soldiers and were fighting in Iraq. Lets not make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. People get assaulted in this country every day. Im not saying they should, but this wasnt a beating due to political beliefs.

geogfather wrote:t looks at least on the surface, like this had nothing at all to do with the fact that they were soldiers and were fighting in Iraq. Lets not make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. People get assaulted in this country every day. Im not saying they should, but this wasnt a beating due to political beliefs.

'93HonoluluCat wrote: You should append your take with a statement of "as far as we know."

BAC wrote:The guys who were caught on tape don't exactly look like the types that would be manning the booths at anti-war rallies

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

BAC wrote:The guys who were caught on tape don't exactly look like the types that would be manning the booths at anti-war rallies

You haven't seen, then, the videos of campus recruiting teams leaving student union buildings (don't remember the campus(es) of the top of my head)--they didn't look like the types that would be "manning the booths," either.

Grizlaw wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

BAC wrote:The guys who were caught on tape don't exactly look like the types that would be manning the booths at anti-war rallies

You haven't seen, then, the videos of campus recruiting teams leaving student union buildings (don't remember the campus(es) of the top of my head)--they didn't look like the types that would be "manning the booths," either.

I've got to go with everybody else on this one, '93. Yes, it's theoretically possible that these beatings happened because the men were soldiers. It's also possible, I suppose, that one of the soldiers' fathers is an abortion doctor, and the attacks were a means of expressing the attackers' anti-abortion views. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, though, I personally am going to believe the most obvious answer -- this was just a fight that happened outside a bar, much like several hundred other fights that probably happened outside bars in major cities all over the country (and in Butte) on the same night. Despicable? Yes. Politically motivated? Probably not.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:In my second post on this thread I said even if the beatings weren't an anti-military action, that it was despicable. The fact is, we just don't know what motivated these thugs until they're caught. I think even you would agree with that logic.

Hell's Bells wrote:I hope that the kids who were involved in this rot in hell

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:I hope that the kids who were involved in this rot in hell

Well, yeah. You set the bar pretty low for the rotting in hell crowd after you declared that you hoped T.O. rotted in hell.

Grizlaw wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:In my second post on this thread I said even if the beatings weren't an anti-military action, that it was despicable. The fact is, we just don't know what motivated these thugs until they're caught. I think even you would agree with that logic.

Of course we can't *know* what their motivation was until they are caught (and possibly not even then, depending on how cooperative they are). In the absence of any evidence, though, which do you think is the more logical assumption: the most obvious (i.e., random street crime fueled by alcohol and stupidity), or the least obvious (i.e., hate crime driven by desire to prove a political point)??

The thing that I find most intersting about this incident is the fact that it became national news at all. If you read the Metro section of the NY Times, you'll see that there are, on average, several homicides and several other violent crimes committed *every night* in NYC; those crimes are equally despicable, and they get no more than a paragraph or two on page 40 of the local newspaper. Assuming this incident was not motivated by the victims' military status (and there is no evidence that it was), one has to wonder about the motivation behind this becoming more than a local news story.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:In my second post on this thread I said even if the beatings weren't an anti-military action, that it was despicable. The fact is, we just don't know what motivated these thugs until they're caught. I think even you would agree with that logic.

Of course we can't *know* what their motivation was until they are caught (and possibly not even then, depending on how cooperative they are). In the absence of any evidence, though, which do you think is the more logical assumption: the most obvious (i.e., random street crime fueled by alcohol and stupidity), or the least obvious (i.e., hate crime driven by desire to prove a political point)??

The thing that I find most intersting about this incident is the fact that it became national news at all. If you read the Metro section of the NY Times, you'll see that there are, on average, several homicides and several other violent crimes committed *every night* in NYC; those crimes are equally despicable, and they get no more than a paragraph or two on page 40 of the local newspaper. Assuming this incident was not motivated by the victims' military status (and there is no evidence that it was), one has to wonder about the motivation behind this becoming more than a local news story.

I understand the low likelihood of this beating being politically motivated. It is probable this is just another bar brawl. It is possible, though, this is based on the soldiers' profession. Say, for instance, in the bar the soldiers were shooting their mouths off about how great the were in Iraq. The thugs, thinking the war is terrible and atrocious, and Bush was not elected, and then the President again stole the election, and Michael Moore is the greatest filmmaker of all time, and...and...invited the two outside to "talk." Isn't that plausible?

I do not claim to know this is or is not just another feud fueled by "liquid courage." I think all crimes of this caliber are despicable, and I think the reason this one caught my eye is that I have relatives in the area, and I'm in the military. It will be interesting to hear the thugs' point-of-view.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:[M]ilitary support basically stops as soon as you enter Seattle proper. Once you get into Federal Way and work your way south, it gets friendlier.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:As for somone who mentioned what happened with people running recruiters off the campus and threatening them as well as destroying their property, it happened just a little east of where this beating happened. The recruiters were harassed at Seattle Central CC in the Capitol Hill area.