"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Matt Stawicki" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont
or cant fight back under the circumstances.

Then, we're cowards when we drop bombs and shrug our shoulders over the
"collateral damage"? I'm not saying we are, but it sounds like that fits
your definition. As long as we're going to split hairs, that's one that
had
better be attended to.

========
Then lets attend to it. Are you saying that the WTC was actually a
military target, and the 3000 innocent men, women and children who
died were collateral damage? Oh, I get it! Those towers must have been
disguised missile silos :-{

========

I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his
definition
of "cowards."

========
Better get out the goop and patch up that argument, Ed. It don't hold
much water.

========

I didn't make the argument. It's Nicholas whose argument needs some
careful
re-thinking.


========

It may have taken carbide gonads to do what they did. But they're
cowards, Ed. And the only ones who can't see that wear turbans, and
buffoons like Bill Maher.

=========

"Carbide gonads," on "cowards"? I think you need a new dictionary, Matt.
Not
to mention, some more careful thought.

=========

Sporting a new hat these days?

=========

Yankees. Always. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making conclusions as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose credibility
yourself in doing so.