On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:32:35 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt. These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly. Bravery in this case is directing your aggressions to the Military
or Government that you oppose not its civilians.

So the "War on Terrorists" is cowardly?
How about the torture?

Its like being a bully and
realizing you cant hurt the bully so you go after someone weak or
defenseless instead.

Sort of like the end result of loving neocons, wingers & Nukes ...
Or attacking Iraq & Afghanistan.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:08:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

It was flying a planeload into a shipload.
Must be the water.
[
General Jack D. Ripper :
[
He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said
that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too
important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the
training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer
sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination,
Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap
and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
]
[
And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our
precious bodily fluids.
]
[
Nineteen hundred and forty six. Nineteen fortysix, Mandrake. How does
that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh? It's
incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into
our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual,
and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie
works.
]
]
--
Cliff
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:08:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's Ok for you, but it's not Ok for our military and political leaders.
They need to keep clear heads

Like Rumsfeld:
[
The Unknown

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Glass Box

You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.
—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession

Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.
—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

Happenings

You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.

It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.

Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.

All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

The Digital Revolution

Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!
—June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation

Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.
—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity

I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.
—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

http://dod.gov/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
]

And bush:
[
"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we
were concerned about the security for the United States of America." —George W.
Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the
United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

"And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a
sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great
British company." —George W. Bush, defending a plan to allow a company
controlled by the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in the United States,
aboard Air Force One, Feb. 21, 2006

"I think it's really important for this great state of baseball to reach out to
people of all walks of life to make sure that the sport is inclusive. The best
way to do it is to convince little kids how to—the beauty of playing baseball."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2006

"I like my buddies from west Texas. I liked them when I was young, I liked them
then I was middle-age, I liked them before I was president, and I like them
during president, and I like them after president." —George W. Bush, Nashville,
Tenn., Feb. 1, 2006

"He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared,
you are a state sponsor of terror." —George W. Bush, on Saddam Hussein,
Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006

"I'll be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie. I've heard
about it. I hope you go — you know — I hope you go back to the ranch and the
farm is what I'm about to say." —George W. Bush, after being asked whether he's
seen Brokeback Mountain, Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006

"It's a heck of a place to bring your family." —George W. Bush, on New Orleans,
New Orleans, La., Jan. 12, 2006

"You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath
underseas and under fire." —George W. Bush, addressing war veterans, Washington,
D.C., Jan. 10, 2006

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital,
but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little
scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she
first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks
for your compassion, Colonel." —George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded
veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San
Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

"[i]t's a myth to think I don't know what's going on. It's a myth to think that
I'm not aware that there's opinions that don't agree with mine, because I'm
fully aware of that." —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Pa., Dec. 12, 2005

"I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein,
you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as
I-concerned." —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome." —George W. Bush,
defending Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States
would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators, NBC Nightly News interview, Dec. 12,
2005

"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." —George W. Bush,
Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

"As a matter of fact, I know relations between our governments is good." —George
W. Bush, on U.S.-South Korean relations, Washington D.C., Nov. 8, 2005

"Wow! Brazil is big." —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by
Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 6, 2005

"Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, 'what is good for them
and what is not.'" —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Oct. 6, 2005

"I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial
system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a lot
of opinions for people to look at." —George W. Bush, on the nomination of
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Washington, D.C., October 4, 2005

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job.
That's what I'm telling you." —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005

"If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers
that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging
people to return at this moment of history." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
Sept. 19, 2005

"Listen, I want to thank leaders of the — in the faith — faith-based and
community-based community for being here." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
Sept. 6, 2005

"So please give cash money to organizations that are directly involved in
helping save lives — save the life who had been affected by Hurricane Katrina."
—George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2005

"I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into
neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons
that somebody is creating new jobs." —George W. Bush, Poplarville, Miss., Sept.
5, 2005

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." —George W. Bush, to FEMA director
Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job
performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 (Listen to audio; read more stupid
quotes about Hurricane Katrina)

"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and
stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild.
The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this
chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the
rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to
be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."
(Laughter) --George W. Bush, touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2,
2005

"My thoughts are, we're going to get somebody who knows what they're talking
about when it comes to rebuilding cities." —George W. Bush, on rebuilding New
Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., Sept. 2, 2005

"Americans should be prudent in their use of energy during the course of the
next few weeks. Don't buy gas if you don't need it." —George W. Bush,
Washington, D.C., Sept. 1, 2005

"It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating
on the ground." —George W. Bush, turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane
Katrina flood damage from Air Force One , Aug. 31, 2005

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time
investigating it." —George W. Bush, on the probe into how CIA agent Valerie
Plame's identity was leaked, Washington D.C., July 18, 2005

"I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend." —George
W. Bush, on visiting Denmark, Washington D.C., June 29, 2005

"I was going to say he's a piece of work, but that might not translate too well.
Is that all right, if I call you a 'piece of work'?" —George W. Bush to
Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, Washington, D.C., June 20,
2005

"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh —
because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American
values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those
values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere." —George W.
Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C.,
June 20, 2005

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks
reminded us that we are at war." —George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks,
Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

"And the second way to defeat the terrorists is to spread freedom. You see, the
best way to defeat a society that is — doesn't have hope, a society where people
become so angry they're willing to become suiciders, is to spread freedom, is to
spread democracy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005
"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and
the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America,
people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not
tell the truth." —George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on prisoner
abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W.
Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy
in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow."
—George W. Bush, Tbilisi, Georgia, May 10, 2005

"I think younger workers — first of all, younger workers have been promised
benefits the government — promises that have been promised, benefits that we
can't keep. That's just the way it is." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May
4, 2005

"It means your own money would grow better than that which the government can
make it grow. And that's important." —George W. Bush, on what private accounts
could do for Social Security funds, Falls Church, Va., April 29, 2005

"I can only speak to myself." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple
objectives — like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write."
—George W. Bush, on federal education requirements, Washington, D.C., April 28,
2005

"He understands the need for a timely write of the constitution." —George W.
Bush, on Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of Iraq, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have
to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes
activity and action." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"But Iraq has — have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're
hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"I appreciate my love for Laura." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 20,
2005

"We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an
environmental challenge." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 20, 2005

"Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is
what you're going to do about it." —George W. Bush, Kirtland, Ohio, April 15,
2005

"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking
on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C.,
April 14, 2005

"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it
would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied
information you shouldn't see." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14,
2005

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and
literacy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

"I understand there's a suspicion that we—we're too security-conscience."
—George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

"If they pre-decease or die early, there's an asset base to be able to pass on
to a loved one." —George W. Bush, on Social Security money held in private
accounts, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, March 30, 2005

[I'm] occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." —George W.
Bush, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

"In this job you've got a lot on your plate on a regular basis; you don't have
much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking
different portraits, 'How do you think my standing will be?'" —George W. Bush,
Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

"In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible — whatever that means." —George
W. Bush, on his time frame for shoring up Social Security, Washington D.C.,
March 16, 2005

"I like the idea of people running for office. There's a positive effect when
you run for office. Maybe some will run for office and say, vote for me, I look
forward to blowing up America. I don't know, I don't know if that will be their
platform or not. But it's -- I don't think so. I think people who generally run
for office say, vote for me, I'm looking forward to fixing your potholes, or
making sure you got bread on the table." —George W. Bush, on elections in the
Middle East, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

"I repeat, personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution." —George W.
Bush, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." —George W.
Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

"If you're a younger person, you ought to be asking members of Congress and the
United States Senate and the president what you intend to do about it. If you
see a train wreck coming, you ought to be saying, what are you going to do about
it, Mr. Congressman, or Madam Congressman?" —George W. Bush, Detroit, Mich.,
Feb. 8, 2005

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers.
For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether
or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a
series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple
that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with
personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be —
or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you?
It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like,
for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as
opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the
benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is
a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other
words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those —
if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." —George W. Bush,
explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic
that you're doing that." —George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha,
Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (Listen to audio)

"After all, Europe is America's closest ally." —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany,
Feb. 23, 2005

"Because he's hiding." —George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why
Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

"I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean,
we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no
way, shape, or form should a human being, play God." —George W. Bush, ABC's
20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005

"I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your
sacrifice." —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla., Jan. 14, 2005

"I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of
the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a
regret, something." —George W. Bush, speaking to reporters, Washington, D.C.,
Jan. 14, 2005

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection — an election in Iraq at this
point in history?" —George W. Bush, at the white House, Washington, D.C., Jan.
10, 2005

"We need to apply 21st-century information technology to the health care field.
We need to have our medical records put on the I.T." —George W. Bush,
Collinsville, Ill., Jan. 5, 2005

"I believe we are called to do the hard work to make our communities and quality
of life a better place." —George W. Bush, Collinsville, Ill., Jan. 5, 2005
]
--
Cliff

I saw a bumper sticker today. It had a picture of GWB looking
rather stern on the let side and on the right it said:


"LIKE A ROCK"

only dumber

On 27 Feb 2006 16:29:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam.

And where did "they" tell you that?
Is "they" Rush, Bill O'Reilly & Karl Rove?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:59:27 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Since when have we been attacking civies?

100,000 ++ dead in Iraq ..... not to mention the torture
camps ....
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

I suppose it's exactly the same...as long as you consider a military
ship during war the same as a building full of people at work. The
cowardly part is not the fact that both the kamikaze and the terrorist
know they're going to die. The cowardly part is........aw forget it.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:59:39 +0000, Guido wrote:

Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

Trust the people. Both were elected in democracies ...
seems like they have decided between the Neocon Menace
& the Neocon Threat.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:47:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Look at the whole dam picture and you tell me what had to be done.

Jail neocons?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:47:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

You never can tell what will
happen and people who look at things hindsight which is the vast majority of
critics in this case are real low scum.

And the "critics" were correct from the very start ....

Found those "WMDs" yet?
Is ths guy too much of a coward to read posts?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed. How
do you suppose that happened?

You need the real numbers, or closer to them.
Not the government sacnctioned count in the morgues
*of those few that managed to end up in morgues* before
the neocons insisted that the counting be halted years ago.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:54:39 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do.

But you'll not let that stop you, now will you?
Faux, Rush, Falwell, Rove, Robertson, bush, O'Reilly ....
your mouth must feel like an army marched thru .... several
months ago ...
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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."

Since when have we been attacking civies?

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed. How
do you suppose that happened?

So the dudes driving tanks and the insurgents are civies???

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

If you read the fine print..you will note that they lump all
insurgents such as the feyadeen, Jihadist and so forth, into the same
body count as those killed by bandits, those feyadeen and Jihadists,
and so forth. Only a fraction of those deaths were caused by Allied
forces. As you will note..they count anyone killed as a result, of the
breakdown in law and order.

The same with US KIAs. The body count for Allied troops includes
those killed in vehicle accidents, drownings, being run over by tanks
and so forth. About half or slightly more are actual deaths as a
result of enemy forces.

You really know better than to blather on like that Ed.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On 27 Feb 2006 16:29:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing buttons to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that one
before answering.

Let's just suppose that in support of his cause, someone strapped on a
suicide belt and went into the local day care center in your
neighborhood and blew up himself and a bunch of innocent kids. What a
brave soldier. (In the words of the great Homer Simpson, that was
sarcasm in case you didn't notice.) I suppose that just because he
killed himself his action isn't technically cowardly but by the fact
that he went after innocent people with the objective of terrorizing
others, I'd say it might be viewed as a cowardly tactic


Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

From what I've heard from some Muslim scholars in the US, we're all wet on
the "virgin" story. That may be good for whipping up the grunts before an
attack, but that isn't what's going on with the big-time terrorists. They're
after something else. Have any ideas?

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam. They would like us all to live in the 12th century with them.

They Demand we convert to their 12th century culture, or submit to it
as dhimmi..or be killed

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:32:35 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt. These people
hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly. Bravery in this case is directing your aggressions to the
Military
or Government that you oppose not its civilians. Its like being a bully
and
realizing you cant hurt the bully so you go after someone weak or
defenseless instead.


So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

With the other exceptions you overlooked. IMO if you want to put it that way
yes it was less of a cowardly target.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:06:22 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Listen bud now your killfiled after I am done reading this thread.

Which continues to this day ....

In no
****ing way am I bragging about death of people I knew and cared about.

Just the others, eh?

I am
telling you how this article is missleading. It doesnt matter if you are
killed in action or in a combat zone. The insurance is something paid into
by the members. I served for nearly 12 years I am talking from experience
not out my ass like you.

So Saddam did the right thing and you miss your Corporal telling
you want to do & think.
--
Cliff

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly.

Why? It's vile, it's perverse beyond our imaginations, maybe. But what is
"cowardly" about it?

What fear did they have using civilians against a civilian target I ask you?
Their suicidal tendency has nothing to do with being brave. Besides suicide
is often looked at a cowardly way of dealing with your problems. These
people felt they were getting rewarded for their deeds so their is even less
of a thought of fear of dying.




If you keep asking yourself these questions, Nicholas, you'll eventually
come to realize that you're using the word "cowardly" as invective, one of
the most hateful words you can think of to apply to someone you hate, one
that will diminish them in your mind and take away some of the sting.

But it's bull****. It's a word that means nothing in this context, except
that you've lost your bearings and you have a need to hate and diminish
those people, regardless of how silly and strained you have to make your
explanations, to make yourself feel better.

cow·ard (kourd) KEY

NOUN:

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
That's Ok for you, but it's not Ok for our military and political leaders.
They need to keep clear heads, and to have what it takes to avoid the
cheap
shots, self delusions, and other nonsense that people like you can indulge
yourself with. As good military leaders know, slipping into that crap is a
good way to lose battles through self-delusion.

--
Ed Huntress

I am not to sure about your point here, as if our leaders or Mil personnel
are going to read this thread of our opinions as gospel?

Well I can at least be thankful that you are responding to my posts versus
bashing, thanks Ed.

Nick

"Kathy" wrote in message
. ..
I saw a bumper sticker today. It had a picture of GWB looking
rather stern on the let side and on the right it said:


"LIKE A ROCK"

only dumber

Hmm...what kind of rock was it?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing buttons
to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing
your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that
one
before answering.

Let's just suppose that in support of his cause, someone strapped on a
suicide belt and went into the local day care center in your
neighborhood and blew up himself and a bunch of innocent kids. What a
brave soldier. (In the words of the great Homer Simpson, that was
sarcasm in case you didn't notice.) I suppose that just because he
killed himself his action isn't technically cowardly but by the fact
that he went after innocent people with the objective of terrorizing
others, I'd say it might be viewed as a cowardly tactic


From what I've heard from some Muslim scholars in the US, we're all wet
on
the "virgin" story. That may be good for whipping up the grunts before an
attack, but that isn't what's going on with the big-time terrorists.
They're
after something else. Have any ideas?

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam. They would like us all to live in the 12th century with them.

I completely agree and have tried to voice this opinion as well.

Nick

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the
kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes
into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the
WTC?

I suppose it's exactly the same...as long as you consider a military
ship during war the same as a building full of people at work. The
cowardly part is not the fact that both the kamikaze and the terrorist
know they're going to die. The cowardly part is........aw forget it.

Let me try to finish that one for you: The cowardly part is not having the
guts to do it--whatever it is you really believe should be done.

Main Entry: cow·ard
Pronunciation: 'kau(-&)rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French coart, from coe tail, from Latin
cauda
: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity

Where's the show of fear? Where's the timidity?

What Nicholas--and George Bush--are trying to do is to re-define the word to
suit their inarticulateness and muddle-headed thinking. Cowardice is NOT
having the guts to fly the plane--into the ship, or into the building.

Killing innocent people is a sick perversion, except, of course, when WE'RE
killing the innocent people, for some "higher purpose."

It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. Those are entirely different
concepts from what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a
sickness that convinces someone that their ends justify the means of killing
many innocent people.

That's all there is to it, and no amount of home-cooking is going to change
the meaning of the words.

--
Ed Huntress

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:47:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..

Totally ****ed up says Paul Breman.

There were no plans of what to do afterwards, a vacuum was allowed to
develop and that has been filled by bombs. Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

Look at the whole dam picture and you tell me what had to be done.
Diplomatic talks failed, embargos failed and were killing millions of
people
and needed to end, but before that could happen Saddam who vowed to use
WMD
against us and our allies had to be removed. We tried the CIA, we tried
opposition groups inside of Iraq, the only thing left was to go invade
Iraq
and remove him. Yes it was very difficult to do and would face problems.
We
knew no matter what we would have a mess. You never can tell what will
happen and people who look at things hindsight which is the vast majority
of
critics in this case are real low scum.



What hindsight? Most of the world could and did foretell what would
happen. The State Department said what would happen, but a group of
****wads like Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and Wolfowitz thought they knew
better, and the guy in charge is away with the faeries.
http://photobucket.com/albums/a181/s...pad/1143pe.jpg


Rush, rush, rush, gotta do it now, gotta do it now, rush, rush, rush,
do it on the cheap, yeah combat troops can secure the peace, do it on
the cheap.

They knew there'd be problems you say, but didn't bother with having
enough trained personel to provide security. Bremer says they were
some 30-50,000 light. Making it up day by day as they went along,
winging it on a national scale.

Kerching, kerching, kerching!
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And now all ****ed up and no way out.

Everyone wanted this war before it happened. Clinton wanted it, Kerry wanted
it, in fact I think there was only one person who voted against the war at
the time, henceforth hindsight you have all these people protesting it. They
all had the same information the President had at the time and also whatever
they chose to believe. You still never touched on the fact of embargos
killing millions of people and continuing at that pace millions more. Just
decorate your point with silly cartoons after the fact cause you cant with
websites prior to the invasion that was against the war.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

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.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to weasel out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your words
or
bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions from them
as they have. Ed you are better then this. Here is what I am annoyed about.
No it isnt something we are doing regulary in Iraq, nor do imply that we are
cowards, that is what I am talking about putting words in other peoples
mouth quit the ****!


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."

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:42:46 -0500, "Kathy"
wrote:

I saw a bumper sticker today. It had a picture of GWB looking
rather stern on the let side and on the right it said:


"LIKE A ROCK"

only dumber

I saw a pro abortion sticker the other day. Too bad your parents didnt
use that option.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:08:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the
kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes
into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

It was flying a planeload into a shipload.
Must be the water.
[
General Jack D. Ripper :
[
He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said
that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too
important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the
training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer
sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination,
Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap
and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
]
[
And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our
precious bodily fluids.
]
[
Nineteen hundred and forty six. Nineteen fortysix, Mandrake. How does
that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh? It's
incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into
our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual,
and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie
works.

Let me guess: Dick Cheney?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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."

Since when have we been attacking civies?

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed.
How
do you suppose that happened?

So the dudes driving tanks and the insurgents are civies???

I knew it. Gunner is saying all 30,000 were Iraqi soldiers and insurgents...

Hang tight, Gunner. They're working on brain transplants, and you'll be
eligible any day now, if you keep posting like this. g


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

If you read the fine print..you will note that they lump all
insurgents such as the feyadeen, Jihadist and so forth, into the same
body count as those killed by bandits, those feyadeen and Jihadists,
and so forth. Only a fraction of those deaths were caused by Allied
forces. As you will note..they count anyone killed as a result, of the
breakdown in law and order.

Right. Which fraction? Are you saying we're no worse than the WTC attackers?
Are you awake, or has somebody tied you up, and started typing on your
computer?


The same with US KIAs. The body count for Allied troops includes
those killed in vehicle accidents, drownings, being run over by tanks
and so forth. About half or slightly more are actual deaths as a
result of enemy forces.

You really know better than to blather on like that Ed.

I really know when you're blathering, Gunner. You're trying to whittle the
number down to something under 4,000. Then you'll be happy and vindicated,
right?

Holy smokes, man, wake up, will you?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

please deliver us...Gunner got his hands on the Reader's Digest edition of
the Koran...

--
Ed Huntress

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the
kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes
into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the
WTC?

These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly.

Why? It's vile, it's perverse beyond our imaginations, maybe. But what
is
"cowardly" about it?

What fear did they have using civilians against a civilian target I ask
you?
Their suicidal tendency has nothing to do with being brave. Besides
suicide
is often looked at a cowardly way of dealing with your problems. These
people felt they were getting rewarded for their deeds so their is even
less
of a thought of fear of dying.

First off, whatever those attachments were, don't do it. They aren't
supposed to be used here.

Second, you know nothing about their "suicidal tendency." Third, you don't
get to re-write the dictionary to suit your own wacky ideas.

A coward is one who fears for his own life or safety so much he can't do
something he believes he should do. These were not cowards who attacked the
WTC. Some day you'll grow out of these delusions, Nicholas. And I hope that
Bush grows out of them before it's too late.

--
Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed.
How
do you suppose that happened?

You need the real numbers, or closer to them.
Not the government sacnctioned count in the morgues
*of those few that managed to end up in morgues* before
the neocons insisted that the counting be halted years ago.
--
Cliff

Back a few months ago, late in the fall, I did some research on the numbers
and where they're coming from. You don't have to convince me.

On the other hand, even with the attempts to diminish them, like Gunner's
attempt today, the numbers are enough. The justification the pro-war crowd
makes for moral superiority is so weak, and the fact of the matter is so
obvious, that they're reduced to trying to chisel the numbers down and to
argue over that.

There's no reason to argue over the numbers. Whittled down as far as they
can go, they've got thousands of civilian lives on their hands that they
can't explain away. The entire argument that we're morally superior because
the other side is killing innocent civilians is a fraud, a hypocrisy so
blatant that only a self-deluding fool could miss it.

It isn't worth arguing with them over the numbers, Cliff. They know they're
full of ****. Just let them babble on.

--
Ed Huntress

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

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.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to weasel
out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your words
or
bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions from
them
as they have.

No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your words
again:

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

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well aware,
you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on Nagasaki, and
many other places. We made a big splash with it early in the history of
modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and burned Atlanta.

You've made a twisted and blatantly incorrect definition of cowardice.
Killing innocent civilians is a perverse act that's usually done to inflict
terror. It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. That's what we did
in Dresden. That's what we did in Hiroshima. That's what we did in Nagasaki.
That's what we did in Atlanta.

Our purpose was to terrorize those populations into surrender. Don't give us
some silly moralizing revisionism. That was intentional terror, which we did
to shorten the wars and to save the lives of many of our own soldiers. IMO,
it was entirely justified terrorism. It was perverse. But I'd do it myself,
under the same circumstances. Humans often do perverse things out of
necessity.

What bravery and cowardice are about is individual sacrifice, putting
oneself at risk of possible or certain death--or shrinking from it, even
when the coward knows that risking his life could save many more, by winning
a battle, or by terrorizing the enemy, if it comes to that. The WTC
attackers were not cowards. And your definition of cowardice is ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

Ed you are better then this. Here is what I am annoyed about.
No it isnt something we are doing regulary in Iraq, nor do imply that we
are
cowards, that is what I am talking about putting words in other peoples
mouth quit the ****!

What to you MEAN we aren't doing it regularly in Iraq?? We bomb some place,
killing a lot of people, and we usually don't even apologize for killing the
civilians. We puff up some words about how unfortunate the "collateral
damage" is. But we killed those civilians. You can argue all you want about
whether it's necessary or not, or about how unfortunate it all is, but what
you CAN'T do is moralize and hide from the fact that we've killed thousands
of them ourselves. And we knew we were going to wind up killing them, going
in, just like we knew we'd kill tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden,
or in the two cities in Japan.

And to put it in the context of bravery or cowardice displays a lack of
clear-headed thinking about what those words MEAN. They mean something. They
don't mean what you're claiming they mean. If you let yourself fall into
that kind of self-delusion, you've become irrelevant to the issue. If you
can't think straight about these things, you can't do anything that
contributes to understanding the subject.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:09:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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."

Since when have we been attacking civies?

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed.
How
do you suppose that happened?

So the dudes driving tanks and the insurgents are civies???

I knew it. Gunner is saying all 30,000 were Iraqi soldiers and insurgents...

I knew it..Ed is saying none of those 30,000 were combatants....

Hang tight, Gunner. They're working on brain transplants, and you'll be
eligible any day now, if you keep posting like this. g

Nice spin. Only problem is...its the spin of a 3rd grader. I had hoped
for better of you.


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

If you read the fine print..you will note that they lump all
insurgents such as the feyadeen, Jihadist and so forth, into the same
body count as those killed by bandits, those feyadeen and Jihadists,
and so forth. Only a fraction of those deaths were caused by Allied
forces. As you will note..they count anyone killed as a result, of the
breakdown in law and order.

Right. Which fraction? Are you saying we're no worse than the WTC attackers?
Are you awake, or has somebody tied you up, and started typing on your
computer?


Read the fine print Ed...then get back to me.

The same with US KIAs. The body count for Allied troops includes
those killed in vehicle accidents, drownings, being run over by tanks
and so forth. About half or slightly more are actual deaths as a
result of enemy forces.

You really know better than to blather on like that Ed.

I really know when you're blathering, Gunner. You're trying to whittle the
number down to something under 4,000. Then you'll be happy and vindicated,
right?

Providing cites from a well known antiwar site..and you even then
attempt to not only spin my post..but the stats they have worked so
hard at collecting so they can demonize the war effort.

Now I know why the pharmacutical industry hired you. It must have been
tough though..deciding Pharmacutical..or the DNC staff writer job. I
feel your pain.

Holy smokes, man, wake up, will you?

Wake up to what? Wars suck. people get waxed. Been there, done that
while you were smoking dope under a bridge.

You really do hate the US, dont you? Your febrile attempts at making
things worse than even the anti war goups do..is noted..and found
contemptable.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:10:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

please deliver us...Gunner got his hands on the Reader's Digest edition of
the Koran...

Actually Ed..Ive got a copy in the book shelf, right next to the
Tibetian Book of the Dead and the Bahgadvida. I had to move it on the
other side of the torah though..I kept smelling smoke.

Sura 2:120= "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with
thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: `The Guidance of
Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to follow their desires
after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find
neither Protector nor Helper against Allah."

Sura 3:28= "Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers
unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will
there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may
guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember)
Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."

Sura 5:54= "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for
your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to
each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is
of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Jihad has a context-dependent meaning, from a physical “holy war” to
personal “spiritual effort”.

Suicide is forbidden (Sura 4:29),
martyrdom is approved (3:169-174).

The Koran commands Muslims to “fight the unbelievers who are near to
you and let them find in you hardness” (Sura 9:123),

“fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay tribute… and
feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29)
“fight… until there is no more tumult… and faith in Allah prevails
altogether and everywhere” (Sura 8:39).


Claiming you are butt ignorant is your latest method of spin?

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:16:50 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote

They Demand we convert to their 12th century culture ...


Which century's culture are _you_ in favor of, Gunner? g

-- TP

21st of course.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:27:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:45:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed.
How
do you suppose that happened?

You need the real numbers, or closer to them.
Not the government sacnctioned count in the morgues
*of those few that managed to end up in morgues* before
the neocons insisted that the counting be halted years ago.
--
Cliff

Back a few months ago, late in the fall, I did some research on the numbers
and where they're coming from. You don't have to convince me.

On the other hand, even with the attempts to diminish them, like Gunner's
attempt today, the numbers are enough. The justification the pro-war crowd
makes for moral superiority is so weak, and the fact of the matter is so
obvious, that they're reduced to trying to chisel the numbers down and to
argue over that.

There's no reason to argue over the numbers. Whittled down as far as they
can go, they've got thousands of civilian lives on their hands that they
can't explain away. The entire argument that we're morally superior because
the other side is killing innocent civilians is a fraud, a hypocrisy so
blatant that only a self-deluding fool could miss it.

It isn't worth arguing with them over the numbers, Cliff. They know they're
full of ****. Just let them babble on.

On the other hand..Ed is trying to make the US look far worse than
they are.

When a group of Jihadists holes up in a residential area..and the US
holds off flattening it for 2 weeks, dropping leaflets and asking that
the population comes out via bullhorns..then flattens it long after
the deadline..so be it that civies get greased. Its called Darwinism.

If a group of Jihadists collects a group of civies..and trots towards
a machine gun emplacement, firing wildly at the troops, from behind
the civies..there is only one option...run and die..or try to pick off
the jihadists with aimed rifle fire. Must suck to be the civies who
didnt wack the jihadists and allowed themselves to be used as a human
shield.

But Ed..now he would demand we run and die.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the
kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes
into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the
WTC?

I suppose it's exactly the same...as long as you consider a military
ship during war the same as a building full of people at work. The
cowardly part is not the fact that both the kamikaze and the terrorist
know they're going to die. The cowardly part is........aw forget it.

Let me try to finish that one for you: The cowardly part is not having the
guts to do it--whatever it is you really believe should be done.

Main Entry: cow·ard
Pronunciation: 'kau(-&)rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French coart, from coe tail, from Latin
cauda
: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity

Where's the show of fear? Where's the timidity?

What Nicholas--and George Bush--are trying to do is to re-define the wordto
suit their inarticulateness and muddle-headed thinking. Cowardice is NOT
having the guts to fly the plane--into the ship, or into the building.

Killing innocent people is a sick perversion, except, of course, when WE'RE
killing the innocent people, for some "higher purpose."

It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. Those are entirely different
concepts from what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a
sickness that convinces someone that their ends justify the means of killing
many innocent people.

That's all there is to it, and no amount of home-cooking is going to change
the meaning of the words.

--
Ed Huntress

There's no doubt that you have the dictionary on your side but, hey,
all we have to do is keep misusing the word and soon they'll change the
dictionary to match. Ain't that true?

Terrorist actions are routinely called "cowardly acts" and you can't
blame all of it on Bush's inarticulatreness. The cowardly act may not
be the act of terrorism itself but the act of those who sent the
brainwashed terrorists in the first place.

GW

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing
buttons to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing
your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that
one
before answering.

Let's just suppose that in support of his cause, someone strapped on a
suicide belt and went into the local day care center in your
neighborhood and blew up himself and a bunch of innocent kids. What a
brave soldier. (In the words of the great Homer Simpson, that was
sarcasm in case you didn't notice.) I suppose that just because he
killed himself his action isn't technically cowardly but by the fact
that he went after innocent people with the objective of terrorizing
others, I'd say it might be viewed as a cowardly tactic.

Something like, say, dropping a couple of atomic bombs on 200,000 people in
Japan, including many, many thousands of kids?


You're really going to equate what happens when two countries are
fighting for their survival in the middle of a world war with a bunch
of lunatics trying to kill "infidels" ?


I think you're trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle, Gus.


I'd rather try to get a rich man into heaven than attempt that camel
trick. g

Cliff wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006 16:29:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam.

And where did "they" tell you that?
Is "they" Rush, Bill O'Reilly & Karl Rove?

Nope. It must have been Falwell, Robertson or the Pope.

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cliff wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006 16:29:36 -0800, "Gus"
wrote:

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide
radical
Islam.

And where did "they" tell you that?
Is "they" Rush, Bill O'Reilly & Karl Rove?

Nope. It must have been Falwell, Robertson or the Pope.


more hypocrites.....

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:49:56 GMT, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:42:46 -0500, "Kathy"
wrote:

I saw a bumper sticker today. It had a picture of GWB looking
rather stern on the let side and on the right it said:


"LIKE A ROCK"

only dumber

I saw a pro abortion sticker the other day. Too bad your parents didnt
use that option.

That kind of rock, I expect.
Does really old kibble pertify?
--
Cliff

On 27 Feb 2006 17:46:49 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

I suppose it's exactly the same...as long as you consider a military
ship

Where the sailors work?

during war

Like the one Iraq & Afghanistan declared on the US?

the same as a building full of people at work.

Sort of like a city or nation full of people, right?

But you say that they should be bombed at home from 40,000 feet?

The
cowardly part is not the fact that both the kamikaze and the terrorist
know they're going to die. The cowardly part is........aw forget it.

Was it like being AWOL from a cushy rich kids flying club
(funded at taxpayer expense)?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:42:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What we're talking about is a
sickness that convinces someone that their ends justify the means of killing
many innocent people.

The Neocons WIN THAT ONE HANDS DOWN !!
--
Cliff