Article

2005-08-25 Home Front: Politix

Governor says we're forced to live in a democracy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 lol! ima debatin .com heer! wun of my faves heer along with shipman, deablu, desblo, fred, an frank g.

pd, ima jus sayin zf breengs sumthin heer to rantburg that shuldnt be put down. wether ya agree withem or not, and that includes LIBERALHAWK too, they bring differing opinons an make fore intrastin conversation.

rather thatn jus a buncha dittoheds.

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:12|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Lol. He's got an IQ in the comfortable room temperature zone, methinks - the perfect choice for a big Blue state. I'd guess this fiduciary malfeasance is sufficient for a recall / impeachment. At the very least, the Pubs ought to be able to field a candidate who can skewer him without mercy - and maybe begin turning the tide there. Surely he'd be no match for your average HS debate team member.

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 00:13|| 2005-08-25 00:13|| Front Page Top

#3 //but you DO between, say, the brave al Zarqi and LTC Kurilla?
//

p.s.

doent knoew watn yore tryin say there. perhaps yoo shuld elaborate fore me?

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:13|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:13|| Front Page Top

#4 No chance of an impeachment. First, both houses are Dem-held. Second, this is chump change compared to what's going on in Chicago right now -- Da Mayor, though he hates Sonny-Boys guts, doesn't want to establish any precedent about throwing bums outta office.

And youse can take dat to da bank.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-08-25 00:14|| 2005-08-25 00:14|| Front Page Top

#5 muck4doo - I don't accept moral equivalence such as that promoted by ZF. I also don't accept blather as truth, such as what ZF posted. You can say it's worthy. I say it's not. You joined him, agreed with him - and then proved my point that it's not legitimate nor acceptable to an honest man. We are not on the same page regards this issue. Period.

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 00:18|| 2005-08-25 00:18|| Front Page Top

#6 That's sad, Dr Steve. Maybe in the next election he can be whipped like a town fool in front of the cameras. Yeah, I'm dreaming, I know.

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 00:21|| 2005-08-25 00:21|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, ZF finds OBL admirable. The debate ends there, I think.

Not on the same page??? Hell, it's a different genre altogether.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 00:24|| 2005-08-25 00:24|| Front Page Top

#8 poynt is yoo an i both knoew they aint moral equivelanses. and im dont think thatn wat zf wuz tryin to say either. wut he wuz jus tryin to poynt owt wuz obl an crew wernt cowards.

and ima agreein they aint.

doent underestimate yore enemy. and ima knowin em troops aint either.

unless yore tryin to poynt out sumthin diffrent, that wuz em gist im got of it.

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:25|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:25|| Front Page Top

#9 //#7 Well, ZF finds OBL admirable. The debate ends there, I think.
//

no! that wernt wat he wuz sayin at all!

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:26|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:26|| Front Page Top

#10 My state may be full of moonbats and TRANZI fools but it is a democratic republic. We voted on this and we passed it. This kind of crap would get you recalled here.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0Â´ Doom 2005-08-25 00:27|| 2005-08-25 00:27|| Front Page Top

#11 ZF: I find his persistence in the face of difficult odds admirable.

Okay I stand corrected. It's his persistence that he finds admirable. My apologies. Shocking nonetheless :)

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 00:28|| 2005-08-25 00:28|| Front Page Top

#12 krap. gonna hafta go bak to O.N.

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:30|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:30|| Front Page Top

#13 I better quit for some hours before ZF calls Hitler a brave man because he declared war to the whole world.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 00:30|| 2005-08-25 00:30|| Front Page Top

#14 krap.
ima give up. tgf, that werent wat zf wuz tryin to say.

wat ima got wuz thay he wuz sayin they despicable evil peples now jus like z-man an obl, but ya kant rely call em cowards.

shit! lotsa evil peples in histry werent cowards, but they wuz evil.

theenkin yallz jus missen him poynt. :(

ah jeebus.

knew ima shuld jus stay at page 3,

>:(

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:36|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:36|| Front Page Top

#15 ...and, he's digging deeper:

ZF: The average terrorist has to be much braver than the average GI

okay...one last shot to counter his point:

Not necessarily. The average terrorist (in Iraq) is on his own turf with a lot more opportunities for protection. They do after all, blend in with the crowd, amongst sympathizers no less.

Time to quit.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 00:42|| 2005-08-25 00:42|| Front Page Top

#16 nope. fukin aples an oranjes.'

gota agre. yallz debatin couraje an morlaity.

yallz never gonna agree cuz yore all on diffrent pajes frum eech other.

shheesh. ima on it to now. shulda kep me big mowth shut, but ima theenkin yallz aint even argooin same dabayte

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 00:46|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 00:46|| Front Page Top

#17 krap. ima hedin owt. consider yallz frendz an ima jus getin more ornier all teh time itn seems to me. doent meen to offend. dont think zf wuz eether.

gonna try harder jus stik to paje 3, but thisn reely bekomin em ordeel not to stik me to that mebbe unedukated in to teh topiks of paJE 2 an 3..

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 01:01|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 01:01|| Front Page Top

#18 err, 1 an 2

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 01:02|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 01:02|| Front Page Top

#19 FWIIW, I tend to agree with Zhang (and mucky). Demonizing and denigrating ones enemies is a dangerous practice, becuase it makes it harder to deal rationally with the situations they create. In this war there is no compromise, its us or them. Its not about who's better, braver, more moral, its about winning. I am perfectly happy with JDAMs at 10,000 paces.

And BTW, by entering the bravery, morality, etc. debate, you are debating to the Left's agenda.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-25 01:03|| 2005-08-25 01:03|| Front Page Top

#20 TGA: I kinda hope you stick around, especially for this one.

ZF: I understand that lots of people of despicable moral character can be physically brave.

Here's some food for thought: one of his major rationales for making war upon the US has been that the US supports "the corrupt house of Saud."

Well, that's semi-understandable, except for one thing: as far as I can tell, he has never tried to target any members of the Saudi royal house itself.

When Al Qaeda goes to war in Saudi Arabia, they bypass doing anything against the House of Saud and go straight to blowing up conveniently disarmed Lebanese Christians conveniently gathered in walled compounds for the bombing exercise.

He talked about wanting to go to war against Iraq during the invasion of Kuwait, but he didn't. The Saudi armed forces were part of the coalition then, and if he actually _had_ experience in Afghanistan he could have used it as a reason to join in some sort of advisory capacity, saying he was an agent working for their intelligence services or something.

The Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Egypt blow up stuff, but their recent terrorist attacks bypass government targets to go after tourists.

Ignoring Iraq, the only _governmenst_ in the Middle East whose _militaries_ they have attacked, AFAIK, is Jordan's and Turkey's. (And Israel, but there they seem to concentrate to civilian attacks). They say Shi'ites are apostates and not real Moslems and use that as a rationale to kill Shi'a civilians in Iraq, but they don't attack Iran's Shi'ite government.

They don't attack the Turks much, considering that under Al Qaeda's mythology, the Turks are to blame for the betrayal and destruction of the Caliphate.

He may be reckless on the battlefield, but he sure acts like he's scared of something.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-08-25 01:03|| 2005-08-25 01:03|| Front Page Top

#21 last time. zf aint sayin they rite or even moraly corect in anyway. hes sayin they aint cowards. thats all. and ima agreein with him.

japanese werent cowards either even tho they were rong. we werent cowards either an we went in an kicked they asses.

germans wernt cowards, russians werent cowards, sorks wernt cowards, israelis aint, french are,

so wat. never underestimate yore enemy!

wats rong with hiz poynt?

>:(

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 01:11|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 01:11|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm looking over what I wrote, and I am wishing I could do a rewrite myself.

What I'm trying to say is that there's a massive mismatch between the rationale OBL and other Al Qaeda groups give for their actions and the fact that they primarily make war upon the American military (and to a much lesser extent Jordan's military), civilians in Israel, and more recently civilians in Iraq.

Pakistan is a major military ally of the House of Saud, but other than trying to blow up Musharraff personally every once in a while they don't seem to be at war with the Pakistani military as a whole.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-08-25 01:13|| 2005-08-25 01:13|| Front Page Top

#23 wats rong with hiz poynt?

This is what is wrong with his point: OBL isn't doing anything that distinguishes him as being brave. Declaring war against America doesn't do it. Sorry. That's not bravery. It is not even that spectacular. Anyone can do it. It's done every Friday in certain places of the world.

The jihadis crashing planes into buildings were not brave. They killed defenseless people. They made the choice to go after defenseless people. Ask yourself why.

Suicide is not a form of bravery. Sorry. Contrary to popular belief, what they did wasn't even that difficult.
Involving the civilian population is a form of cowardice. Surely you don't disagree with that?

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 01:30|| 2005-08-25 01:30|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA: I better quit for some hours before ZF calls Hitler a brave man because he declared war to the whole world.

Actually, that's exactly what he was. He fought all the major powers simultaneously. Ditto for the Japanese Emperor, who helmed a dirt-poor country taking on Uncle Sam and all of the European empires simultaneously. OBL's probably got more guts because he doesn't have either the Wehrmacht or the Imperial Japanese Army backing him up. However, I would have paid for the privilege of slipping the noose around their necks. One can admire a shark without having any problem with carving him into steaks.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 01:32|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 01:32|| Front Page Top

#25 no rafael. cant dispyoot that. espeshaly ima gotta re-boost via natgeo this weekend. reely recomend all see it friday nite wen its showin agayne. 9/11 speshal.

but reely, kant see wewre ya gonna get me to say osama an krew are cowards. they aint. and they aint stoopid either. alwayz remember that. theyn gotta be beetin, an yore best chanse is by NOT underestematin thes enemy!

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 01:36|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 01:36|| Front Page Top

#26 PF: What I'm trying to say is that there's a massive mismatch between the rationale OBL and other Al Qaeda groups give for their actions and the fact that they primarily make war upon the American military (and to a much lesser extent Jordan's military), civilians in Israel, and more recently civilians in Iraq.

Al Qaeda probably hoped we'd topple the Saudis, paving the way for a world-wide jihad against Uncle Sam and helping al Qaeda rise to power in Saudi Arabia. We neatly side-stepped that, and the Saudis may have killed two of the princes involved in terror financing. Al Qaeda wants another state like Afghanistan. But none of the existing governments wants to either make way for Al Qaeda or play the role of the Taliban, for obvious reasons. Al Qaeda's between a rock and a hard place. If it hit Arab states, Arab rulers clamp down on terror financing. But the only place it has any prospect of gaining power and gathering the resources of a state around it is in the Arab countries.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 01:40|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 01:40|| Front Page Top

#27 Keep posting ZF, you're making Rantburg history.

Nobody's talking about underestimating anybody. We're talking about assigning the bravery attribute to people who don't deserve any such thing. Simple as that. Nothing that they did is brave. At least, not by my definition.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 01:41|| 2005-08-25 01:41|| Front Page Top

#28 goin after civilyens is cowardise raphael. yallz an me both know that. but...

but...

krap. eh zf, this iz pointless. know were ya cumin frum an yore maken excelent poynts, but tis em loosen batle heer.

still theenk itsn em stoopid idea to underestimate yore foe wther it be in war, sniperin, or spellin bee.

ifn bushs gonna declare than carry it through!!!

tired of em bullshitr

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 01:42|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 01:42|| Front Page Top

#29 Germany was in a position to wipe out most of Europe, and Hitler could have succeeded if he wasn't stupid. How's that bravery? That's like the US nuking the Bahamas. Would it be bravery?

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 01:45|| 2005-08-25 01:45|| Front Page Top

#30 goin after civilyens is cowardise raphael

but what????? there's no but, it's COWARDICE.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 01:47|| 2005-08-25 01:47|| Front Page Top

#31 R: Germany was in a position to wipe out most of Europe, and Hitler could have succeeded if he wasn't stupid. How's that bravery? That's like the US nuking the Bahamas. Would it be bravery?

What part of Germany took on all the major powers simultaneously don't you understand? These weren't paper tigers. The US, France and Britain had imposed a humiliating defeat on Germany during WWI, and Russia had been a major military power in Europe for centuries. None of the Germany's victories were pre-ordained - Hitler's generals rolled the dice and won battle after battle - at the beginning, when the other powers were off-balance. Eventually, Germany lost because of the weight of numbers. It simply could not match either the manpower or the combined firepower of the Allied powers.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 02:11|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 02:11|| Front Page Top

#32 That wasn't bravery it was stupidity.

The Finns had kicked the Russians out of Finland, at least initially, adding to Hitler's belief that Russia was ill prepared. And the Russians were ill prepared to fight following Stalin's purges of his military officers.
Hitler had the blitzkrieg, a new method of waging war.
Hitler had the entire German industrial machine at his disposal. A GDP more than France & Britain put together (I would have to verify the exact figures).
Britain's war preparation was at an even lower level than prior to WW1.

Armed with all of this, any idiot can declare war. It doesn't take bravery. He didn't take on "all the major powers simultaneously". He never planned to. He certainly never counted on the US entering the war.
Now it's YOU who has to learn a little history.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 02:22|| 2005-08-25 02:22|| Front Page Top

#33 R: The jihadis crashing planes into buildings were not brave. They killed defenseless people. They made the choice to go after defenseless people. Ask yourself why.

The bombers that carried the A-bombs also went after defenseless people. Japan's air defenses were prostrate. Between the two bombs, 100,000 people were incinerated. I guess this makes our bomber pilots cowards, since their lives were never at risk.

R: Suicide is not a form of bravery. Sorry. Contrary to popular belief, what they did wasn't even that difficult. Involving the civilian population is a form of cowardice. Surely you don't disagree with that?

Facing certain death and going through with it isn't a form of bravery? OK. Involving the civilian population *isn't* a form of cowardice - especially not when GI's have overwhelming weapons and firepower superiority and ten of the terrorists are getting killed for each GI killed. You might as well say that the American use of standoff weapons is a form of cowardice. I understand why we might want the terrorists to fight in a way that maximizes our advantages, but it's not clear to me why they would want to do that.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 02:25|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 02:25|| Front Page Top

#34 Here are the GDP numbers (in billions):

1939: UK 287, France 186, Germany 351, Italy 141,

So it's not UK+France=Germany, but adding Italy it's almost evenly matched. Individually you can see that Germany could have handled any European power by itself. Even Russia, with a GDP of 366.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 02:29|| 2005-08-25 02:29|| Front Page Top

#35 ZF, when you reach rock bottom, don't start tunneling. I realize that you have staked out several . . . how shall I say it . . . controversial, highly esoteric and nuanced opinions in the past few days and are loathe to dial back on any of them, but clinging to a particle of a fiber of a thread of what once may have been a coherent, rational cloak of an argument (even I don't know what that means) is just self-damning. It reminds me of a line in a Pink Floyd song -- "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way." That's what you appear to have been doing with your "OBL is brave and W is a pussy by comparison" argument and your arguments during the set-to with Frank G and others the other day. If I were you, I would take a look at the downward spiral that is your recent commentary on Rantburg and take a few days off from commenting to reflect. When you come back in a few days, you may have a new sense of perspective and may get a fairer hearing than you will get from many us after your recent comments.

Take it easy.

Posted by Tibor 2005-08-25 02:32|| http://incompetenttibor.blogspot.com]">[http://incompetenttibor.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 02:32|| Front Page Top

#36 I guess this makes our bomber pilots cowards, since their lives were never at risk

VERY nice try. I must admit, very nice try. But no cigar. Again. If you don't know the difference, there's no point in arguing with you.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 02:36|| 2005-08-25 02:36|| Front Page Top

#37 I'm guessing..OBL most likely had a more grounded vision for himself when he first went on Jihad in Afghanistan against the USSR.

He landed in Afghanistan with big money in a country that had little to speak of. Witnesses say he has charisma and was a natural leader, couple that with money and that he hung out with other Islamic leadership [wackos]. He built a following and as it grew he started to believe in his own messenger from God bullshit. The disease progressed, I think he now see himself as an Islamic superstar anointed by Mohammed himself.

His vision for mankind is messianic doom, Muslim Murder Inc. he's NUTZ!

[My Pop served WWII South Pacific, Island asaualts, ironic because it was my Mother who opened my eyes to what courage was. I was being a punk [11yr] on day as per usual, and made fun of someone who was scared. She told me bravery was surmounting your fear by doing the very thing which causes you to fear. Made an impression then, and it's still true today.] [training and natural attitude helps]

Quite possibly OBL may not be afraid, being next to God and all. If so according to my Mom, he don't have courage! [Moms are an authority in case ya don't know]

Posted by Red Dog 2005-08-25 02:38|| 2005-08-25 02:38|| Front Page Top

#38 R: Hitler had the entire German industrial machine at his disposal. A GDP more than France & Britain put together (I would have to verify the exact figures). Britain's war preparation was at an even lower level than prior to WW1.

Here are the numbers from 1938:

USA 800
UK 284
France 186
Italy 141
USSR 359
Germany 351
Austria 24
Japan 169

I think the British number is wrong. At that point, the British empire included India, and a large number of overseas holdings in Asia and Africa. My feeling is that there is no way that the British empire wasn't some multiple of Germany, in economic terms.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 02:44|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 02:44|| Front Page Top

#39 R: VERY nice try. I must admit, very nice try. But no cigar. Again. If you don't know the difference, there's no point in arguing with you.

If this is supposed to be a debate rather than something we take on faith, I think you need to do more than assert a difference - you need to demonstrate one.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 02:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 02:46|| Front Page Top

#40 muck4doo, Ima gona chek out natgeo ths weekend.

Posted by Red Dog 2005-08-25 02:50|| 2005-08-25 02:50|| Front Page Top

#41 Zhang Fei,

I think ya covered it bro, go for a jog down to the 7/11 on Miller av.!

Posted by Red Dog 2005-08-25 02:54|| 2005-08-25 02:54|| Front Page Top

#42 Looks like we have the same source. Here is the conclusion of that same source:

This analysis shows that while by 1942 there was a substantial Allied economic advantage, measured in GDP, this did not exist at the beginning of the war in 1939. In fact for a period of time the Axis commanded greater GDP than the Allies.

If you don't know the difference between actions in WW2, and the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, then I honestly do not know how to respond to that. Sorry. My mind does not work in that way. Maybe I need to re-analyze certain things, but somehow I think I would still come to the same conclusion.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 02:56|| 2005-08-25 02:56|| Front Page Top

#43 You have to add to the UK number the GDPs of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. And I recall reading that the UK's military industrial capacity in 1939 was greater than Germany's in key areas like aircraft production.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-25 03:04|| 2005-08-25 03:04|| Front Page Top

#44 I'll probably get flamed for this, but this reminds me of stuff on DU.

ZF made a perfectly rational analysis of a situation, and it has been met with irrationality. OBL and his ilk undoubtedly use cowardly tactics. This does not mean that he is a coward however. A coward would do nothing for fear of reprisal.

I've come to the realization that we are probably not going to prevail in this war. The jihadis know well they will lose any stand-up fight with US forces. They have thus adapted their tactics to force us out of our comfort zones vis-a-vis using civilians. Is this cowardly?? Yes it is. Is it smart??? Yes also It is their only chance.

I have realized that our enemy has the will, but lacks the means for victory. We on the other hand, have the means but lack the will.

I don't think ZF proffessed any admiration for the jihadis, he just called a spade a spade. It was met with emotional responses one would normally see at some far left leaning sites like DU or Kos.

Think about it.

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 08:00|| 2005-08-25 08:00|| Front Page Top

#45 The bombers that carried the A-bombs also went after defenseless people.

Sorry, wanted to stay out of this, but can't let that one slide. The pilots were trained, uniformed troops representing a country that had been at war with Japan for years. They were on a military mission that had been sanctioned not only by the airforce but by the personal decision of the President of the United States.

The hijackers were terrorists who seized control of airliners during peacetime by slicing the throats of women and children.

If you honestly don't see the difference, my opinion of your intelligence has just dropped precipitously.

I actually agreed with earlier parts of your (and mucki's) arguments about not underestimating the courage that can come from religious extremism, but this last argument is just rank revisionism and moral equivalence.

Posted by docob 2005-08-25 08:11|| 2005-08-25 08:11|| Front Page Top

#46 If OBL is so brave, let's see him take a flight in to and out of Baghdad.

Bush did.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-25 08:31|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-25 08:31|| Front Page Top

#47 Bravely bold Sheikh Osama rode forth from Mecca
He was not afraid to die, O brave Osama
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Osama
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And all his limbs hacked and mangled, brave Sheik Osama
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off and his penis...
He is brave Sheikh Osama,
Brave Osama who...
To fight and...
Brave Osama ran away
Bravely, ran away...away...
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Osama turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely talking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sheikh Osama

Posted by Abu MacSuirtain 2005-08-25 10:22|| 2005-08-25 10:22|| Front Page Top

#48 I'll probably get flamed for this, but this reminds me of stuff on DU.

I agree. Rafael, quit acting like a f*cking moonbat. ZF did not express admiration for OBL and you know it. Twisting people's words around is something the LLLs do.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 10:36|| 2005-08-25 10:36|| Front Page Top

#49 You are complaining about "emotional reactions". Hell yes, they are emotional. "Courage", "bravery", "valor" are moral categories, along with "integrity" they are some of the highest we have.

If we concede those to terrorists, we denigrate those values. You can say that terrorists are ruthless, smart, strong...whatever... these are not moral categories. This has nothing to do with underestimating an enemy. A virus is not courageous, yet extremely dangerous and we have to treat it as such.

They are a death cult. Somebody who values death (and 72 virgins) higher than life, not just his own life but the lives of innocent human beings, can never be courageous.

By THEIR standards, they may be courageous. But I don't give a damn about THEIR standards, only about OURS. By their standards every woman without a chador is a whore.

Calling an enemy who uses "cowardly tactics", as has been conceded here, "courageous" means we respect him. I don't respect terrorists, I don't admire them. I see them as mortal dangers that have to be wiped out.

If we start calling them "courageous" and "freedom fighters", we will start losing this war.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 13:17|| 2005-08-25 13:17|| Front Page Top

#50 If you want to see courage, it's right here.

Posted by Matt 2005-08-25 13:40|| 2005-08-25 13:40|| Front Page Top

#51 It's like saying...."but Hitler was an excellent artist". I don't give a shit how good a painter he was. His acts of evil wiped out any of the good he might have done on this planet.

I think TGA summed it up nicely, not much else I can add to that.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 13:57|| 2005-08-25 13:57|| Front Page Top

#52 Amen.

Posted by Abu MacSuirtain 2005-08-25 14:25|| 2005-08-25 14:25|| Front Page Top

#53 ZF's argument is exactly like ones you would see at DU, except that no-one over there would stick up for American exceptionalism and the superiority of Western (Christian) values and civilization. Happy to see that that was done so superbly here by TGA, son of a former foe of the U.S. in another conflict.
U.S.A.!

Posted by Mickey Kos-sack">Mickey Kos-sack 2005-08-25 14:25|| 2005-08-25 14:25|| Front Page Top

#54 I'm just going to take note of this side track, as it seems to have come up yesterday as well.

Really I just have hard time thinking of, OBL and our other enemies as brave. I mean, understand your argument and it seems sound, but I think there's this emotional block.

But I offer some reasons as a counter point. Firstly, I'll define bravery not the lack of fear, but rather acting in the face of fear. I do not believe suicide bombers fear nor appreciate death. I believe the same goes for OBL and our various enemies. They do not fear their own death nor, care for the deaths of others.

Therefore if they do not have fear, they cannot be brave. I guess I would say they are delusional, thinking no harm can come to them or that death is some sort of reward. I really do not believe they cannot be brave without that pang of understanding about what they are risking or what they are doing. I could also use the analogy of an animal or robot, that just goes on instinct or just does what it was meant or told to do.

I thought about the argument about how a jihadi hides among the population, because he is smart and not because he is not brave, is moot because he is brave, he simply wants to kill more and cause pain to those around him and those that would stop him. Hiding among the population would not mean a thing if we did not care about those he was hiding among. That is almost the singular most important evidence that we are just.

And on the other side of the argument, I think we are brave, and just btw. I think not only our soldiers, but our leaders as well.

Firstly I believe our soldiers are brave, not because they follow orders to do what they are doing. But because they chose to do it. They weren't drafted and weren't forced, and I believe that nearly all have full understanding of death and what they risk, and do so of their own volition.

Secondly our leaders. I do not think that they are brave because the personal risk. But I did remember reading someone saying something about how they were brave to suffer through character assination, sort of a moral bravery (I think?). Anyway I also feel their brave because it would simply be so much easier to eradicate the mass of cancer than to go in with a scapel. I am sure if it really came down to it, we would have no problem pushing the button. But the fact is we care, we care about people's lives first and foremost. I'm sure international politics and whatever other cynical reasons we could all come up with count, but when it comes down to it, we would absolutely regret the loss of such innocence.

Anyway, in the face of that our leaders choose a more difficult route and a more uncertain one. I think GWB cares about this country and all the people in it, so in a way he is risking those he cares about, it might not be his life, but I think its still precious to him. But I supose that is a point of contention as that is based on an opinion.

Posted by AmbiguityX 2005-08-25 14:41|| 2005-08-25 14:41|| Front Page Top

#55 TGA

My point was that we denigrate the left for acting emotionally in the face of facts to the contrary. Many commenters on this thread are doing the same thing.

You will find no more red-blooded American around than me. Michael Yon's dispatches often have me on the verge of tears of pride. And yes, I feel that the terrorists and jihadis are vile creatures that should be killed wherever possible. I just don't understand why ZF is getting dog piled here for stating things which should be pretty apparent to anyone (at least about the terr stuff, not so certain about his comments on Hitler etal......)

I don't think the concept of bravery is a subjective one. Someone either is or they aren't. I'm certain there were brave German soldiers in WWII, and brave Confederates in the WBTS, heck probably even brave Redcoats during the Revolutionary war. But they weren't our guys and we don't exalt their bravery. It doesn't change the fact that they were brave though.

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 15:16|| 2005-08-25 15:16|| Front Page Top

#56 Texican, with all respect:

We need to understand the difference between traditional enemy soldiers, German Wehrmacht, Confederates or Japanese, and terrorists.

Being and acting courageously is a deeply moral concept.

A terrorist who bombs a kindergarden isn't courageous, even if he is willing to risk his own life over it. A vile action can't be courageous, no matter how risky for the perpetrator.

A terrorist who runs into a burning kindergarden to save a little girl from the flames (even if he himself did cause them) would act bravely in that very moment.

See the difference?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 15:36|| 2005-08-25 15:36|| Front Page Top

#57 TGA, with respect, I believe you are confusing courage with honor. Courage is a morally neutral trait. One can be courageous, though not honorable, while performing a vile act. Dictionary.com lists the definition as:

The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

Nowhere does it say anything about the morality of the act.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 15:48|| 2005-08-25 15:48|| Front Page Top

#58 Then the definition is wrong:

If you jump from a bridge into a river heads on without knowing how deep the water is:

You may have the "state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution"

But you are not brave, you are just a jackass.

But if you jump into the water because there is a little girl drowning and you must take the risk of not knowing whether the jump will kill you or not because the girl will drown in a minute:

You are brave/courageous

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 16:00|| 2005-08-25 16:00|| Front Page Top

#59 Yes, of course. It must be the dictionary that's wrong. My mistake.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 16:01|| 2005-08-25 16:01|| Front Page Top

#60 The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes

None of which apply to OBL and his cronies. Hence they are not brave, by this very definition.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 16:03|| 2005-08-25 16:03|| Front Page Top

#61 It must be the dictionary that's wrong. My mistake.

because the Dictionary(pbuh) is the be-all and end-all. My mistake.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 16:04|| 2005-08-25 16:04|| Front Page Top

#62 TGA

BH kinda stole my thunder. Of course I can see the difference in the situations you propose. Only a fool would think they were on par with one another.

If you prefer, you can call it something other than bravery or courage. I am certainly capable of differentiating between describing an action and my emotional response to it.

My whole point of posting in the first place was to illistrate that some here were guilty of what they accuse the moonbats of; parsing a factual argument on emotional terms.

I did not intend to get into a discussion about the moralistic meaning of words.

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 16:14|| 2005-08-25 16:14|| Front Page Top

#63 Texican/BH

If bravery/courage were only what is described in the dictionary, it would not be a virtue. It would simply be a state of mind.

To overcome your fears is not virtuos if it isn't done for a "noble" cause. What's the point of being brave when it serves no purpose, and how could it be recommendable if it served an evil purpose.

We value brave people, we despise cowards. For what reasons?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 16:20|| 2005-08-25 16:20|| Front Page Top

#64 Labor day can't come soon enough.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-25 16:27|| 2005-08-25 16:27|| Front Page Top

#65 TGA

If bravery/courage were only what is described in the dictionary, it would not be a virtue. It would simply be a state of mind.

That is correct. Courage is simply state of mind. A tool, if you will, to accomplish a task. Courage used in the performance of a noble cause is virtuous. It's how you use it that makes it virtuous. A gun in the hands of a criminal can be used for evil purposes. A gun in the hands of the police can be used for good. But a gun is just a gun.

To overcome your fears is not virtuos if it isn't done for a "noble" cause.

Agreed.

We value brave people, we despise cowards. For what reasons?

We value our brave people, we despise our cowards, because they are performing our deeds, which are noble to us.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 16:29|| 2005-08-25 16:29|| Front Page Top

#66 All right boys, throw some sand on the deck those pools of blood and flesh are turning your commander's stomach. I'll get the friendly fire claims adjuster on this mess ASAP!

Posted by JohnnyFkngSkairy 2005-08-25 16:35|| 2005-08-25 16:35|| Front Page Top

#67 Sorry but this reminds me of Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Of course words mean what we want them to mean. But if we say: This person is courageous, then we mean it in a positive, admiring sense. It's not a neutral state of mind.

"The person has a gun" is neutral.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 16:36|| 2005-08-25 16:36|| Front Page Top

#68 "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il runs the show (in N.K.) with an efficiency Rod would apparently appreciate. According to Time Magazine, Kim acts like a murderous schoolmaster. The Supreme Peopleâs Assembly meets as required to rubberstamp whatever the Dear Leader wants it to. You can get in trouble merely for folding a newspaper so as to crease Kimâs picture. Usually sporting a meticulously maintained pompadour, he once killed a barber who gave him a bad haircut.

Earlier this year, the Dear Leader approved a "Letâs Trim Our Hair According to the Socialist Lifestyle" campaign. Men are expected to keep their hair length to about two inches. Longer locks rob the brain of oxygen, you understand. State-run TV began broadcasting the names and addresses of violators, who were chastised as "blind followers of bourgeois lifestyle."

Look at the Gov.
His hair, being longer than 2 inches, well...

It could also explain his actions...

But if a barber saw him approaching the shop, would the barber hide?

Posted by BigEd 2005-08-25 16:41|| 2005-08-25 16:41|| Front Page Top

#69 Of course words mean what we want them to mean.

Well, we generally try to agree on a definition and promulgate it with dictionaries. But according to Rafael I'm the f*cking Taliban for insisting upon that.

It's like Texican said - if you want to use another term that carries less emotional baggage, go for it. Just don't let your contempt for the enemy blind you to what they are willing to do in the name of their cause. Because no matter how twisted and evil their acts, the manner in which they accomplish them fits the dictionary definition precisely.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 16:51|| 2005-08-25 16:51|| Front Page Top

#70 Yeah, this has degenerated a bit.

To me, words mean what they mean. Just because you don't like the definition of a word and want to change its definition doesn't make it so. That is what the left does, which is what I have been trying to point out all along. You just happen to infer nobility from the word courage and I don't neccessarily. That's all.

I think we're probably on the same page that the actions of terrorists are vile and in no way honorable.

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 16:51|| 2005-08-25 16:51|| Front Page Top

#71 the manner in which they accomplish them fits the dictionary definition precisely

No it doesn't. That's the point I started with yesterday. There are no grounds for calling OBL or the 9-11 terrorists, brave. Not even by the definition that you supplied. .com, TGA, and others have given the reasons as to why.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 17:00|| 2005-08-25 17:00|| Front Page Top

#72 sweet. :)

not offen ya geten 2 day long debayte on em subjekt rownd heer.

Posted by muck4doo 2005-08-25 17:06|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-25 17:06|| Front Page Top

#73 Yeah well, it's good to know where people stand on issues.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 17:11|| 2005-08-25 17:11|| Front Page Top

#74 I uh gree muckee. iten phfun!

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 17:11|| 2005-08-25 17:11|| Front Page Top

#75 What I hate is when ya find a nice juicy topic late in the day when everyone else has already abandoned it.

Posted by BH 2005-08-25 17:14|| 2005-08-25 17:14|| Front Page Top

#76 Texican: at least about the terr stuff, not so certain about his comments on Hitler etal......

Hitler was a WWI war hero* - his job was to bring despatches from the front lines to the rear and from the rear to the front lines. He got shot at a lot by snipers. I believe he won two Iron Crosses, and spent some time recuperating from a gas attack, during which he was temporarily blinded. He served on the front lines for the duration of the war and refused a promotion so he could stay on the front lines.

* That was part of his appeal when he ran for office and later became the dictator of Nazi Germany. I guess war heroes are popular everywhere.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 17:37|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 17:37|| Front Page Top

#77 He was also a damn good artist.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 17:41|| 2005-08-25 17:41|| Front Page Top

#78 Thanks ZF,

That really wasn't an appeal for clarification, but more of question of judgement.

That bit may be a bit harder to defend :)

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 17:47|| 2005-08-25 17:47|| Front Page Top

#79 Well said, Texican. The people attacking Zhang because he is pointing out facts they are uncomfortable with, would do well to examine why those facts make them uncomfortable, rather than 'shooting the messenger'.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-25 17:52|| 2005-08-25 17:52|| Front Page Top

#80 AmbiguityX: I thought about the argument about how a jihadi hides among the population, because he is smart and not because he is not brave, is moot because he is brave, he simply wants to kill more and cause pain to those around him and those that would stop him.

I'm afraid this is confusing why the terrorist is brave with the tactics he uses. He is brave because he risks death fighting the mean, green machine. Hiding among civilians is the only way he can continue operating against coalition forces. Unlike coalition forces, the terrorist has no safe areas - he cannot go back to base, relax and start up a Playstation game. The mean, grean machine has resources that are 1,000 times the terrorist's resources and can get to him anytime, anywhere with unlimited firepower, once he is located. The terrorist's only strength is in his ability to hide.

"Saying that the terrorist hides among the population because he is smart and not because he is brave" is a odd statement. What if I said that the GI uses state-of-the-art equipment because he is smart and not because he is brave? The bravery of either the GI or the terrorist has nothing to do with his tactics - it has to do with the willingness to risk death and significant odds of being killed. Given that the terrorist is losing men at the rate of 10 to 1, I would say that you have to be much braver to be a terrorist than to be a GI.

Churchill on the Muslim fighters he encountered in the Sudan:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Our edge is in technology, not bravery. If we ever have to rely on bravery, we're in deep trouble.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 17:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 17:52|| Front Page Top

#81 ZF

I suggest you explain this to a guy who stormed Omaha Beach.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 18:15|| 2005-08-25 18:15|| Front Page Top

#82 ZF, I think I presented that statement incorrectly. I used too many double negatives and confused myself. Please let me clairfy.

First off I heard the argument. But I feel that the argument invalid because though a terrorist maybe smart for hiding among the population, he is not facing his fear. Which is essential to my definition of bravery.

ZF- What if I said that the GI uses state-of-the-art equipment because he is smart and not because he is brave?

I would have to concur. I believe that the GI is brave because of the fact that they understand what they are risking when they fight, what he fights for and for the manner in which they conduct that fight.

For argument sake I will buy an equivalent of their use of citizenry as shields and our use of technology. But I think this argument really does not apply simply becaue, terrorists have no understanding of what they are truly risking. I cannot see someone as brave who risks nothing. And if they profes not to care about life, it really does not matter whether they risk it or not. We on the other hand not only say that we cherish life, but that we show it time and again, thus risking our lives becomes a matter of courage.

I agree our edge is technology and not bravery, but I believe that we are still brave.

Posted by AmbiguityX 2005-08-25 18:18|| 2005-08-25 18:18|| Front Page Top

#83 Zhang, Syria (who also supports the terrorists in Iraq) has a real army, a real air force, artillery, etc. far in excess of what Lebanon has, and has had the Lebanese military, or what's left of it, outclassed for a couple decades.

It doesn't stop them from making very heavy use of irregulars who target the civilian populace there and who wear no distinguishing mark or uniform. In the absense of the Big Mean Green American Army Machine, they have used the exact same tactics as the terrorists in Iraq, but against a materially and numerically inferior military.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-08-25 18:21|| 2005-08-25 18:21|| Front Page Top

#84 Unlike coalition forces, the terrorist has no safe areas

No, that's not correct. Doesn't apply to Iraq nor Afghanistan. If that was the case, then there would be no terrorists, would there? Coalition forces would have found them all and killed them.

Hiding among civilians is the only way he can continue operating against coalition forces

Again, that's not correct. There are plenty of options available to him. He chooses not to because he is a coward. He uses civilians as a means of protecion, while at the same time conducting combat operations. I don't see GIs hiding behind civilians when conducting combat.

Churchill probably wasn't refering to Muslim warriors hiding amongst the civilian population.

And lastly....

If we ever have to rely on bravery, we're in deep trouble.

And that last comment, definitely earns you one of those awards that .com keeps around for just such occasions. Asshole.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 18:22|| 2005-08-25 18:22|| Front Page Top

#85 He chooses not to because he is a coward.

replace with: He chooses not to avail of them because he is a coward.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 18:28|| 2005-08-25 18:28|| Front Page Top

#86 If we ever have to rely on bravery, we're in deep trouble.

Tell that to the passengers on flight 93, friggin asshole.

I gotta step away from the keyboard. That last statement really did it.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 18:30|| 2005-08-25 18:30|| Front Page Top

#87 Wow!!!!!

ZF has crossed over. What was before a simple matter of semantics on his part has now officially become hyperbole.

Talk about taking a mile.

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 18:45|| 2005-08-25 18:45|| Front Page Top

#88 I think I know what Johnson, Berg, il-Sun, Pearl, the murdered and burned contractors in Fallujah, the mutilated soldiers who've fallen into jihadi hands, the murdered Al Khobar Oasis compound victims (slit throats), Russian soldiers captured in Chechnya, survivors and parents of murdered children in Beslan, and so many many others would make of this thread.

The mind is the key - and I do NOT accept any part of the equivalence, whether admitted or not, being hustled here. Here is why...

If the mind is absent, involuntarily subverted and replaced by indoctrination and obedience, erasing the individual and substituting automatons under the control of others, then it is no more than a tool. Its acts have no applicable description other than useful, efficient, adequate, flawed, inappropriate, and the like. It is not on the same plane as the conscious act of an individual. It can be assigned none of the attributes of the conscious act - for it is not a conscious act - it is the action of a mere tool in the hands of another. Can a tool be "brave" or "courageous" or even "gutsy"? No - it's only an object, a means to an end, controlled by others - who are usually conspicuously absent from the danger area. Add in the "suicide" bombers who've been found chained to the steering wheel, or feet taped to the gas pedal, or thought they were only positioning a vehicle - unaware that it would be remotely detonated - are they "brave" or "courageous" or even "gutsy"? No, they're dupes and fools - just short of total tool, but employed in like manner.

Where the mind of the individual is absent, i.e. not under the conscious control of the individual, by any definition I am aware of, the acts of such a creature cannot be elevated to an equivalent level with conscious acts. There is no relationship between them - any more than a reflex action is equivalent to a conscious act. I've seen some blather about how not all of the indoctrinated are willing to be suiciders - or even jihadis. Thank you, you make my point: some still harbor a vestige (or more) of the individual self - they are not willing tools. Those that don't, where no shred of individualism remains, that are willing to be used as tools, well then: they are tools - and unworthy of descriptions applicable to individuals with conscious control over their actions. They are merely useful, efficient, adequate, flawed, inappropriate, etc.

What we have here is a cherry-picked pointless abstraction of armchair warriors, quibbling with werdz and Googled observations of others, all conspicuously second-hand accounts. I'd wager heavily that none of the equivalency advocates are people who have met life and death moments themselves and either acted selflessly or witnessed it or are alive because of it. As for who might be offended, tough shit - it's fact. I haven't heard a single (known) veteran of combat echo this asinine absurd equivalence BS - and they are the only ones who have a concrete clue. Don't like me and what I'm implying? Lol - get yourself a mirror and fire away: You're out of your depth, your league, your nitpicking nuanced minds. You're just exercising your keyboards and game-show-level intellects. Why, I'm inclined to add: Fuck the fuck off and defer to those who bought you the freedom to blather incessantly - but I won't.

This is America - and the other bastions of the Free West - and you're free to pretend you know something important, to split the finest hairs so you don't look the fool, to chip away at what makes the American soldier who he or she is, honorable warriors fighting demonstrably mindless automatons and tools. Our forces are accountable for every action and inaction. Theirs are not - unless we catch them. Our forces endanger themselves to make certain innocents are not endangered, theirs do not - they specifically target them. Our people understand very clearly the ramifications of their actions - and actually immediately aid those who were trying to kill them, just a moment before. Theirs do not - they often mutilate their victims for terror purposes. Equating the two forces is an act of moral equivalency not tolerated by people with intellectual and moral clarity. It is another form of depravity, in fact. I sincerely hope none of our troops read this thread - the effect would be palpable disgust. Hell, I feel it though my experiences are 35+ yrs in the past.

"Our edge is in technology, not bravery. If we ever have to rely on bravery, we're in deep trouble."

Yep. We're in deep trouble.

RB has felt like home for years. Now, well, now it feels like some university campus where any idea, no matter how fucking stupid or nuanced or foolish or seditious or lame, must be taken seriously - with mock-sagacious head nodding required, not optional. Righty-oh.

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 19:06|| 2005-08-25 19:06|| Front Page Top

#89 "... If we ever have to rely on bravery, we're in deep trouble."
If by "we" you mean you and your terrorist pals, ZF, you're right.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro 2005-08-25 19:09|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2005-08-25 19:09|| Front Page Top

#90 Thank you .com

I'd rather have you next to me bare handed in the last trench than ZF with superior technology.

I hope nothing ever upsets the world of all those armchair warriors. They may be in for a rude awakening.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 19:13|| 2005-08-25 19:13|| Front Page Top

#91 R: And that last comment, definitely earns you one of those awards that .com keeps around for just such occasions. Asshole.

You've missed the point again. Churchill's point was that the enemy was fearless - and if bravery alone separated the two forces instead of British artillery and the Maxim gun, the British might have lost in the Sudan. And if our guys were fighting theirs on anything like equal terms, we'd already have pulled out. You guys seem to see this as a chivalric joust - a fair fight. It isn't - we're not killing their guys at the rate of about 10 to 1 because our infantry are so much better or braver - it's happening because we have superior equipment. Why do their guys have to be braver than ours? Because the kill ratio of 10-to-1 indicates that their guys are ten times more likely to get killed in combat than ours.

As an observer once said - a cause that requires heroes to survive is doomed. I am glad we're not in that position. The problem for the terrorists is that we can generate unlimited supplies of equipment and munitions, whereas they have a limited supply of guys with enough guts to stare death in the face by fighting the mean green machine.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 19:20|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 19:20|| Front Page Top

#92 TGA: I'd rather have you next to me bare handed in the last trench than ZF with superior technology.

I doubt that. Even a club is preferable to being bare-handed.

TGA: I hope nothing ever upsets the world of all those armchair warriors. They may be in for a rude awakening.

Actually, it's the armchair warriors who think that superior courage is what determines victory. If that was enough, we would be sending our troops out in jeeps instead of uparmored humvees.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 19:33|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 19:33|| Front Page Top

#93 Since I lack linguistic skill to put this in another form Zhang Fei you are a total asstard. I don't just totally disagree with you I am totally disgusted by your thinking. Now I'll go take a bath I feel dirty after reading your posts.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0Â´ Doom 2005-08-25 19:35|| 2005-08-25 19:35|| Front Page Top

#94 If I may muddy the waters further . . .

Sure, donât underestimate your enemies power, but this discussion is a virtue versus power discussion, at the core. Some may argue that âvirtueâ is a subjective stance. Okay. But everyone has to ascribe to their understanding of moral imperatives at some point, which may account for the differences being expressed here. Bravery might be considered mrerely the act of overcoming fear. Well, okay, then yes the terrorists overcome fear with action.

Considering that OBL has serious personal issues revolving around his parents and his sexuality, it would be shooting in the dark to say he has âcourage,â per se. Mostly he wants to be accepted and looked up to. He has a need to prove himself and balance out a weak ego. Hitler had the same type of problems and both sought ultimate power to compensate. But meeting danger without fear? I think they are (were) both very fearful men, and in OBLâs case, he has converted the reality of death into a reward to mitigate that sense of fear. Did Hitler do the same thing? Not sure, but his mission became his only reason to live, which is an unreal mindset, and kind of a way out of fear, if you think about it.

Next, despite ZFâs interpretation of Hitlerâs suicide as âbraveâ or âcourageousâ we have to remember that Hitler was not an Asian, and did not have the cultural definitions of suicide in his background or personal makeup. Rather, he was ârunning from danger, trouble, or other difficultiesâ (cowardice) by refusing to face his defeat, or his foes. He was removing himself from confrontation.

I think there is some confusion in this discussion over courage and bravery versus the ability to accomplish an objective. Take the serial killer BTK, for example. ZF might argue that the man had âcourageâ because he killed people--he was able to cross his own conscience and calculate a target and execute them. Of course, BTK was acting out of a combination of choice, drive, and mental illness, and the same can be said of OBL and Hitler. Thatâs what makes (made) them so dangerous. They are motivated by a need to control others in order to self-affirm. Itâs not really about the politics.

OBL needs to get back at his dad, and he is very angry with his dad (OBL has projected his aggressive feelings onto the USA as a substitute, and has problems with his mom too--hence the many wives thing coupled with a drive to reinstitute a more primative social structure that favors men and subjugates women). But the desire to assert oneself, no matter how effective, does not qualify as bravery. It is also unclear how much fear, rather than bravery, plays a part in the activities of OBL and Al Queda, in general. For instance, they really donât want Allah to be mad at them, and they donât want to be seen as less by their group. Thatâs a different stance and motivation than bravery or courage. Hitler had his own very personal reasons for what he did.

Early in the postings, Mucky saw courage and bravery as following through on a course of action despite the risk to life. Well, yeah, if you want to use that definition--theyâll DO certain things--hence Muckyâs disclaimer regarding moral imperatives--which guide the Westâs definitions of courage. Mucky says you can be brave and immoral. From todayâs news: a couple of street thugs beat up a couple of young soldiers returning from Iraq. Courage? No. Immoral? Yes. Overcompensation revolving around social/personal/mental issues? Probably. But the two thugs DID beat up the soldiers. Action was taken, but to the attackers, fear and anger, rather than courage and bravery, most likely had something to do with it.

Simply doing things that are a risk to personal safety does not equal bravery or courage in the realm of virtue, except at a very base, individualistic level. (For example, Iâm sure Custerâs men, as individuals, were âbraveâ or had âcourageâ to fight against the Sioux, but the cause was pretty bogus--the extermination of a race of people solely for the economic business interests of the railroads, etc.) Taking risks to accomplish political goals then, also does not equal bravery or courage in the larger contexts. There, bravery and courage are tied to moral imperatives, to virtue. Putting the argument into relativist terms is evidence only that the person doing so has that belief structure--the belief structure of relativism.

Whatâs most disturbing about the terrorists is their mental and moral disconnnect, and their failure to see the larger societal picture and their place in the world, or their ability to contribute positively. Theyâve given all that up for another concept--allah and his jihad, or as is more often the case with these guys, money and power, and letâs not forget drugs and women. So whatâs new . . .

On ZFâs behalf, I think heâs trying to make a point that might be missed, and that is, PERHAPS our soldiers donât feel as much PERSONAL fear as the terrorists because they are better trained and have better equipment than the terrorists do. Thatâs hard to say, really, because it depends on each circumstance of battle, who has the greater fear and who overcomes it with moral superiority.

The point we should all take home, though, is that terrorists, for psychological reasons, social conditioning, belief in a âcause,â need for approval from surrogate father figures, reclamation of identity following sexual abuse, or whatever, are commited to causing however much death it takes to accomplish their objectives.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 19:42|| 2005-08-25 19:42|| Front Page Top

#95 Let me just say this one thing - If so many don't understand what ZF has really been trying to say, despite repeated clarifying posts, I guess either we're idiots or he needs a f&^king language skills course, .....or he may just be conveying distasteful positions. I'm now an eternal ZF skeptic, BUT willing to listen

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-25 19:46|| 2005-08-25 19:46|| Front Page Top

#96 And I'd honestly be honored to be there with you, TGA. In fact, I guess that observation states our point more clearly than my lengthy explanation, which honored the opposition in this thread with several hours of consideration. Sorry for the bandwidth wasted, Fred.

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 19:49|| 2005-08-25 19:49|| Front Page Top

#97 "True courage is cool and calm. The bravest of men have the least of a brutal bullying insolence, and in the very time of danger are found the most serene and free. Rage, we know, can make a coward forget himself and fight. But what is done in fury or anger can never be placed to the account of courage."

Lord Shaftesbury, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper)

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 19:50|| 2005-08-25 19:50|| Front Page Top

#98 I have a question for ZF. If you believe the other side has greater courage and bravery, what do you suggest we do to make ourselves stronger in that direction? How can we become as brave? What is their amazing source that courage? Did Hitler have the same kind of courage as the Islamofacists? Please describe and put forth a way, a path we could take that would better ourselves in that department.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 19:51|| 2005-08-25 19:51|| Front Page Top

#99 I'd like to think even with an enemy of superior technology we would most certainly rise to the ocassion and fight for what we believe is right.

But ZF I think you are missing an important point here. You'll notice that Churchill describes them as fearless, but does not describe them as brave. I reference my own argument about having fear being a factor in being brave and hence being couragous. Otherwise and .com more eloquently put it they are mearly tools and automotons.

So I might buy fearless, but I cannot buy brave or courageous. But even then I would have to cast their fearlesness in a negative light. I certainly can't admire their fearlessness as it comes from such negative aspects.

Posted by AmbiguityX 2005-08-25 19:53|| 2005-08-25 19:53|| Front Page Top

#100 And, hi there, .com! Long time no see. I don't come here too often anymore because of the reasons your outlined in your post. But it goes without saying that the site needs you, buddy. Take care.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 19:53|| 2005-08-25 19:53|| Front Page Top

#101 Sorry guys,

I didn't mean to rain on everyones parade. I now feel roundly chastized for some reason. I didn't mean to get things stirred up in this little corner of paradise. I have lurked here for many years and just decided to finally post.

Didn't mean to offend so many sensibilities

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 19:58|| 2005-08-25 19:58|| Front Page Top

#102 Okay since I'm partly responsible for this...*throws wallet on the table*...how much does bandwidth go for nowadays?

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 19:58|| 2005-08-25 19:58|| Front Page Top

#103 I'm now an eternal ZF skeptic, BUT willing to listen

I think you can count on the listening part Frank.

Posted by Shipman 2005-08-25 19:59|| 2005-08-25 19:59|| Front Page Top

#104 "Without courage all virtues lose their meaning."

~Winston Churchill

ZF: could you address the above question also in this context? Thanks.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 20:00|| 2005-08-25 20:00|| Front Page Top

#105 And just for a breather . . .

"Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihoodâthe virtues that made America. The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

~Theodore Roosevelt

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 20:02|| 2005-08-25 20:02|| Front Page Top

#106 ZF, I've admired many of the things you've written here over the past couple of years. Now you seem to be acting like a little kid stamping his foot.

Posted by remoteman 2005-08-25 20:03|| 2005-08-25 20:03|| Front Page Top

#107 "You may not win a fight with courage alone.
But you will never win a fight without it."

TGA

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 20:07|| 2005-08-25 20:07|| Front Page Top

#108 I sure enjoyed TGA's, Rafael's, Ambiguity X's, Phil's, Matt's, Tibor's and .com's stuff today. Reminds me of the old troll hunging escapades we all used to love so much. :) But ZF has always been this way. Always thought Hitler was brave and all of that. Probably he won't change his mind at all. The only point of ZF that I really liked was that, yeah, the jihad dudes will keep fighting. But he was wrong about the premise--for a lot of them, dying is preferable to the pathetic lives they lead, so it's not all that brave. We'd better realize though, that they're driven and delusional and not like us in that respect. Which is a GOOD thing--that we're not like them in that respect. It's a lot better to have a full understanding of what you're doing and why, than to rely on Arab fantasy.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-08-25 20:12|| 2005-08-25 20:12|| Front Page Top

#109 You are complaining about "emotional reactions". Hell yes, they are emotional. "Courage", "bravery", "valor" are moral categories, along with "integrity" they are some of the highest we have. If we concede those to terrorists, we denigrate those values. ---TGA

Ain't that the truth? That's what pissed me off about ZF's arguments. With a couple of sentences he reduced our guys' efforts to that of the jihadis and terrorists.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 20:26|| 2005-08-25 20:26|| Front Page Top

#110 Hey, ex - now that sounds weird, lol! I've backed off, too, though the occasional troll (FR the other day who came totally unhinged over nothing) wants to tussle or a topic arises that hits me square in the heart, as this one does. Call it fireguard duty... Speaking of, good to see you still have the fire, heh. Knock 'em dead, sis!

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 20:31|| 2005-08-25 20:31|| Front Page Top

#111 Holy Godwin's Law... how did I miss this all day?

Are the first hundred comments deleted? Because #1 makes no sense at this point, at least in terms of the article. #2, 4 and 6 sure, but after that... WTF happened?

Posted by eLarson 2005-08-25 20:32|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 20:32|| Front Page Top

#112 Carried over from the previous day eLarson. So yea it kind of sprung up here out of place.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0Â´ Doom 2005-08-25 20:45|| 2005-08-25 20:45|| Front Page Top

#113 .com - I know Robin and others get annoyed at us, but I /we can't let some shit go by withoutmarking it as such. Acceptance is the first step towards: "well, that's common knowledge", as in War for oil, yadda yadda

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-25 20:51|| 2005-08-25 20:51|| Front Page Top

#114 Texican,

"I have lurked here for many years and just decided to finally post."

This is a two for one special for you today. You pick the wrong post, to comment and picked the wrong person to defend.

Personally, I already proved yesterday that ZF is flying over the cuckoo's nest. It's pretty disengenous to state that we behave like DU. None of us are dittoheads. Provide links, state sources and anyone of us are willing to learn. Opinions are like......

ZF,

One day when you and I get some time. I want you to teach me all about WWI and WWII, even though the topic is about OBL and 9/11.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-25 20:54|| 2005-08-25 20:54|| Front Page Top

#115 Lol, Frank... Better watch it, bubba, the PC Police are accountants, at heart...

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 20:57|| 2005-08-25 20:57|| Front Page Top

#116 Poison,

It would appear that you are correct. I must learn to be far more solicitious about my doings here :)

Posted by Texican">Texican 2005-08-25 22:01|| 2005-08-25 22:01|| Front Page Top

#117 yep - many a time someone here's defended my sanity and credibility, to their own regret, later

;-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-25 22:09|| 2005-08-25 22:09|| Front Page Top

#118 actually, come to think of it, it hasn't really happened very often at all, dammit

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-25 22:10|| 2005-08-25 22:10|| Front Page Top

#119 Courage is being afraid and doing it anyway.

So if you are fearless, how can you have courage? If you really are "fearless", I argue you are not brave, just ignorant, or maybe stupid.

And what have the last 118 posts have to do with the Illinois Governor?

And SOME of you need to understand the difference between agreeing with someone, and UNDERSTANDING their point of view.

I once wrrote a paper on "The Greatest Historical Figure of the 20th Century" (Senior in High School, 40 years ago). I defined "Greatest" as "having the greatest influence" (for the purpose of the paper)and selected Adolph Hitler. I got an "A".

I do NOT think AH was the Greatest of the 20th century, but I ARGUED the point, and well (I might add).

Good night, all!

Posted by Bobby 2005-08-25 22:29|| 2005-08-25 22:29|| Front Page Top

#120 Lol, Frank. Indeed, I'll vouch for you. I know you to be an upstanding citizen, excellent father, superior engineer, stalwart patriot, and ~~incorrigible letch~~ exceptionally honest man!

Posted by .com 2005-08-25 22:54|| 2005-08-25 22:54|| Front Page Top

#121 well I got that going for me, which is nice :-)

thx PD lol

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-25 23:02|| 2005-08-25 23:02|| Front Page Top

#122 TGA: You may not win a fight with courage alone.
But you will never win a fight without it.

That's my whole point. Courage is not enough. Our troops are the roughest, toughest men we produce. But if they had to fight toe-to-toe with these terrorists without superior equipment, they'd probably lose. I am doing little more than repeating Churchill's point.

In the Kurilla engagement, four GI's went up against two or three bad guys. Two GI's were shot and two froze. Our guys were wearing body armor and the opposition was dressed in street clothes. Think about that. Our guys got the cavalry to come running because our money buys us a lot of infrastructure, including commo equipment that can pinpoint exactly where our people are in trouble and rapid response teams in helicopters and armored vehicles. The terrorists have nothing.

Note that the word Churchill used - fearless - meant brave, courageous, etc. If you read the literature of the era - British officers were routinely described as fearless, including figures like T.E. Lawrence, Charles "Chinese" Gordon, etc. Churchill's was the era before the '60's emergence of the conflicted, angst-ridden hero of (leftist) Hollywood legend.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-25 23:25|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-25 23:25|| Front Page Top

#123 "But if they had to fight toe-to-toe with these terrorists without superior equipment, they'd probably lose."

No they would not. But of course the rules would change. If you have two boxers and one is boxing fair and the other guy not, the other guy will win unless the fair boxer has better protection. If he does not have that protection he will simply return the kicks in the groin.

And then the better guy will win. The braver guy will win. And it won't be the terrorist.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 23:44|| 2005-08-25 23:44|| Front Page Top

#124 But if they had to fight toe-to-toe with these terrorists without superior equipment, they'd probably lose.

What the terrs lack in technology, they make up in numbers and other aspects. Your technology argument is overplayed.
Put a similarly experienced GI against a similarly experienced jihadi, and again, your argument is unconvincing that the jihadi would win.
Your argument that because the jihadis face a higher probability of getting killed, and hence the GI is less brave, again does not follow. One does not imply the other.
Churchill's description of brave Muslim warriors most likely did not take into account those brave warriors that used civilians for protection.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-25 23:46|| 2005-08-25 23:46|| Front Page Top

#125 "I'll show you how an Italian dies" (Quattrocchi)
"We have rights" (surrendering London bombers)

I rest my case

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-25 23:51|| 2005-08-25 23:51|| Front Page Top

23:52 Zhang Fei
23:51 True German Ally
23:47 Zhang Fei
23:47 Old Patriot
23:46 Rafael
23:44 Frank G
23:44 True German Ally
23:39 Ulase Snimble3984
23:35 Jan
23:30 Bomb-a-rama
23:25 Zhang Fei
23:21 Lone Ranger
23:21 Old Patriot
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:16 CrazyFool
23:15 Jan
23:14 CrazyFool
23:04 Frank G
23:02 Frank G
23:02 Oldspook
23:01 Elmush Angolet8785
22:54 .com
22:51 mmurray821
22:36 Bobby