Today several members of Congress received letters claiming responsibility for the bombing of a military recruiting station in New York's Times Square. The letters were addressed to "Members of Congress" and contained a picture of a man standing in front of the recruiting station with the statement "We did it." The letters did not contain additional threats, however, it may be linked to two other similar incidents in New York, one in October and one in May (2005). Both times an explosive device was detonated around 3 a.m. and the suspect was riding a bicycle in the area.
No suspects have been detained and there were no police or fire reports of serious damage or injuries. This recruiting office is one of the nation's busiest and has been the site of periodic anti-war protests. As the war continues on many recruiting stations have become sites of anti-war protests. Protesters often try to block entrance to recruiting stations, but bombing is going too far. I think it's disgraceful and insulting to the troops who have chosen to sacrifice their lives to defend our freedom. Sure, most people are against the war and see no point in it, but will bombing a recruiting station really help end the war faster? No, I think there are many better ways to protest the war. Besides, isn't bombing the recruiting station to fight for peace/protest the war a bit hypocritical?
What do you think about these acts to protest the war? What should be done to stop them--or should they be allowed as a guarantee of our freedom of speech?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that bombing a military recruiting station is despicable. As Viki mentioned, it ISN'T going to stop the war AND its somewhat hypocritical. These protesters presumably want to stop the war to save lives, yet here they are placing people's lives at risk.
While there should be ways to voice your opinion, especially about topics such as the war, bombing is not one of them. It really sends a mixed message about your goals. After all, isn't the bomber trying to stop the killing and destruction? Then why destroy a building? Some kind of peaceful protest, writing letters to the government, or spreading some sort of anti-war message seem like much more reasonable acts. Freedom of speech is great, but not if it endangers the lives of others.
I agree, its pretty hard to make a case against war when they're bombing buildings. I think they are better and more creative ways of getting one's voice heard that aren't dangerous. This could also be a sign to the government that they should start taking these protestors seriously before someone causes real damage.
Post a Comment