Kirsten Anderberg's Selfish Hate-Fest Against Cindy Sheehan<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Steven Black<\/i><\/p>\r\n
Having read endless diatribes by Kirsten Anderberg published on Portland IMC\r\nand having seen my attempt to comment on them removed and\/or deleted for no\r\nreason other than opposing Kirsten Anderberg's views, I have decided to publish\r\nthis reply elsewhere in the hope that my concerns about Anderberg's free reign\r\non various IMC's can be denounced. The final straw is an article Anderberg\r\nhas written denouncing Cindy Sheehan and defaming Cindy Sheehan's son: How Many Kids Did Cindy Sheehan's Kid Murder?<\/p>\r\n
Let me begin by making my own position on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq\r\nclear. I oppose these wars vigorously. I consider these wars to\r\nrepresent the height of American stupidity, malice, and criminality. I\r\nbelieve that everyone from President Bush down to his commanders on the front\r\nlines should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes. Now that it is\r\nclear that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Iraq\r\nand Afghanistan, I do not support anyone who chooses to fight on the American\r\nside in these wars. With that said, I will now point out the ethical\r\ndepravity represented in the position promulgated by Kirsten Anderberg in her\r\narticle.<\/p>\r\n
Kirsten Anderberg's Libeling of Cindy Sheehan's Son<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Kirsten Anderberg makes the following statements about Cindy Sheehan's son:<\/p>\r\n
While it is self evident that Iraqis have been terrorized by American\r\nsoldiers, I have seen no evidence that Cindy Sheehan's son has terrorized\r\nIraqis. A relative of my own has been sent to Iraq in a medical\r\nrole. Will Kirsten Anderberg one day write that he has terrorized\r\nIraqis? I am aware of absolutely zero information that has been published\r\nwhich indicates that or supports the position that Cindy Sheehan's son has\r\nterrorized Iraqis, nor do I find it reasonable to infer that he has. What\r\nwould motivate one \"activist\" to smear the son of another activist in\r\nthis way? I will provide several possible answers to this question later\r\nin this article.<\/p>\r\n
The next charge is that Cindy Sheehan's son has murdered. Murder is the\r\nunlawful taking of another person's life. From a legal point of view, the\r\nwar in Iraq is an illegal war. Murder is defined to be \"the unlawful\r\ntaking of a human life.\" Bush has ordered Americans into Iraq to\r\nfight an illegal war. At the time of deployment, most Americans believed\r\nthat the war was a legal war. They believed this not because it is true\r\nbut because they were lied to by their government and their government's lies\r\nwere supported by the media. Those of us, myself included, who opposed the\r\nwar from the start were tuned into alternative sources of information, aware of\r\nAmerican history, and had a realistic understanding of why the government's\r\nposition should be rejected and why the corporate media should be ignored. \r\nHowever, we were in a very small minority. The majority of Americans who\r\nsupported the war around the time Cindy Sheehan's son was sent to Iraq were\r\nworking under false assumptions which were foisted upon them unethically. \r\nUnder such circumstances, given the plight of a soldier on the battlefield who\r\nhas been lied to about his reasons for being sent to combat, it is not at all\r\nclear that these soldiers were committing murder. Yes, their President who\r\nsent them and lied to them about the reasons for the war is guilty of murder,\r\nbut the soldiers who merely fought on false premises are not murderers. \r\nUnless Kirsten Anderberg can demonstrate that Cindy Sheehan's son killed someone\r\nwhile knowing that the war was based on false premises for any reason other than\r\nself defense, her charges are libelous.<\/p>\r\n
Kirsten Anderberg levels the charge that Cindy Sheehan's son has plundered in\r\nIraq. This charge I find to be the most unsupportable of all. She is\r\naccusing Cindy Sheehan's son of stealing items from Iraq and taking personal\r\npossession of them. There is not only absolutely no evidence supporting\r\nthis position, but there is no reason to even fantasize that this was the\r\ncase. Yes, some American soldiers plundered (enough of them did so to get\r\ncaught), but this in no way is reasonable cause to believe that any particular\r\nsoldier plundered.<\/p>\r\n
The final charge leveled against Cindy Sheehan's son is that he was a\r\n\"paid terrorist.\" Given that we have already dismissed the\r\ncharge that he was a terrorist, this accusation becomes voided.<\/p>\r\n
In addition to libeling Cindy Sheehan's son, Kirsten Anderberg goes on to\r\nlibel Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg makes the following heartless charges\r\nagainst Cindy Sheehan:<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Anderberg claims:<\/p>\r\n
Let us address these one at a time.<\/p>\r\n
Anderberg claims that Cindy Sheehan said nothing to her son about torturing, terrorizing or murdering Iraqis in an illegal war. \r\nI ask you, how does Anderberg know what Cindy Sheehan discussed or did not\r\ndiscuss with her son? How could she possibly know? Clearly, she\r\ndoesn't know. Nevertheless, despite the fact that she does not know she\r\nstrongly and boldly makes this claim as if she is omniscient (which she clearly\r\nisn't). A kind interpretation of Anderberg's libel would be that she is\r\ndelusional. However, I do not believe that she is delusional. More\r\non that later.<\/p>\r\n
Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with being completely self-centered. \r\nThis flies in the face of the evidence. Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed a\r\nlarge amount of her own time standing up against war criminal Bush and demanding\r\nan end to an illegal war. Cindy Sheehan is sacrificing her own safely, her\r\nown comfort and her own time to help end the murder of Iraqis. I cannot\r\nimagine how an objective person would come to the conclusion that Cindy Sheehan\r\nis being completely self-centered. Where does this come from?<\/p>\r\n
Anderberg asserts that Cindy Sheehan is capitalizing on her son's death in\r\norder to pursue a new career path. Um, what career path would that be, Ms.\r\nAnderberg? Would it be the career path of a political activist? They\r\nmake a lot of money don't they? How would this amount to\r\n\"capitalizing.\" I detect some darker motivation behind\r\nAnderberg's accusations. After all, Anderberg's own website is a frequent\r\nforum for her solicitation of funds from readers for Anderberg's most important\r\ncause: herself.<\/p>\r\n
Making things worse, Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with causing the deaths\r\nof Iraqis. How exactly did Cindy Sheehan cause the deaths of Iraqis? \r\nDid she cause these deaths by giving birth to her son? Should all women\r\njust cross their legs and not bear children lest they accidentally kill someone\r\nby giving birth? Before I read this, I did not think Anderberg capable of\r\nsuch low blows, but now I stand corrected.<\/p>\r\n
Finally, Anderberg charges that Cindy Sheehan raised a paid murderer and\r\nterrorist. Well, Ms. Anderberg, my mother raise several sons. One is\r\na US Army officer and another is an anarchist. Could you please explain to\r\nme how it is that my mother is responsible for one son becoming a soldier and\r\nthe other becoming an anarchist? Perhaps it will shed some light on your\r\nnon-logic.<\/p>\r\n
Why is Anderberg publishing such trash?<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Understanding Kirsten Anderberg takes years of reading her materials. \r\nSeveral very clear patterns emerge upon inspecting her writings. Anderberg\r\nis a misandrist. Her writings are full of vindictive flung against\r\nmen. As well, they are full of false accusations against individuals\r\n(always male), and outright false statements about society that are easily\r\nrefuted (the refutations of which are religiously deleted by Portland IndyMedia). \r\nShe makes grand anti-male generalizations and then applies them to individual\r\nmen, sometimes by name, without any evidence. We see this once again, only\r\nthis time directed at the son of Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg's comments\r\ndirected against Sheehan's son are her false attributions based on nothing more\r\nthan her hatred for men. Notice, Anderberg does not mention the fact that\r\nwomen are deployed in Iraq as well and that these women are murdering alongside\r\nmen. She also mentions Iraqi mothers as victims of the war while not\r\nmentioning Iraqi fathers. For Anderberg, all that matters is that women\r\nare a priori victims and that men are a priori criminals. This is an\r\nunbalanced and untrue view of the world.<\/p>\r\n
On another level, Anderberg is attacking Sheehan because she views Sheehan as\r\na successful activist and views herself as an unsuccessful activist. She\r\nbelieves that since she writes and has written for some time, she deserves the\r\nfame, attention, and respect that Sheehan is receiving. Her jealously of\r\nSheehan provokes her to libel Sheehan for no reason other than making a name for\r\nherself. Personally, I find this disgusting.<\/p>\r\n
Anderberg's diatribe against Sheehan forwards the goals of one and only one\r\nparty: the party that wishes to silence opposition to the war. It is a\r\nbackhanded way of doing it. Frankly, with \"friends\" like\r\nAnderberg, we don't need enemies.<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Why is Anderberg slandering Sheehan?","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2005\/11\/139596.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}