Thursday, April 29, 2004
Tillman "not a hero"
A University of Massachusetts student would have you believe that.
In an editorial that appeared in Wednesday's Daily Collegian, Rene Gonzalez criticized Tillman's service:
"I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. ... They should call Pat Tillman's army life 'Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed.'"
"What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his 'service' was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in."
The paper's editorial board issued a statement on its website, defending the decision to print the hateful column.
That's what it is: hateful. It sickens me to think that someone can feel that way about a soldier that gave his life in defense of America. Despite what Gonzales thinks, Tillman certainly was defending him. Perhaps Gonzales enjoyed watching the Twin Towers fall on September 11, too.
The paper's statement says that "the opinion of Gonzalez, though it dissented from that of the other two columns, deserved its space within the debate."
What debate? He's not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to marry, or that partial-birth abortion should remain legal. He's making an ad hominem attack on a dead soldier. It's despicable and giving him an outlet to say that is equally despicable.
|
In an editorial that appeared in Wednesday's Daily Collegian, Rene Gonzalez criticized Tillman's service:
"I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. ... They should call Pat Tillman's army life 'Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed.'"
"What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his 'service' was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in."
The paper's editorial board issued a statement on its website, defending the decision to print the hateful column.
That's what it is: hateful. It sickens me to think that someone can feel that way about a soldier that gave his life in defense of America. Despite what Gonzales thinks, Tillman certainly was defending him. Perhaps Gonzales enjoyed watching the Twin Towers fall on September 11, too.
The paper's statement says that "the opinion of Gonzalez, though it dissented from that of the other two columns, deserved its space within the debate."
What debate? He's not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to marry, or that partial-birth abortion should remain legal. He's making an ad hominem attack on a dead soldier. It's despicable and giving him an outlet to say that is equally despicable.
Longhorn Sites
Astros Sites