posted on September 27, 2001 11:15:20 AM new
Donny, sometimes death is a more cowardly choice than life. Those men chose to take action against a group of trapped and unarmed non-military people. Then, rather than face what might come as a result of their actions, they died. People commit suicide everyday. I have never before heard it described as an act of courage, and I cannot imagine any context in which killing unarmed civilians could be courageous. They were nothing more than cowards (albeit clever ones).
posted on September 27, 2001 11:17:13 AM new
Toke -
Maybe thinking of it this way will help...
Perhaps both Republicans and Democrats, and anyone else, sincerely believes that their way is the wisest way. Their end isn't getting elected. Their end is the prudent care of the country, the world, and all of us. The means is politicking.
If you put it in that perspective, it might not seem so bad.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:18:55 AM new
Look at it this way. It's not bravery to kill yourself for a cause that gives you the direct express route to the Garden of Allah...complete with acres of compliant virgins. Maybe we should call these turkeys impatient instead. Pleasure beckons, after all.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:30:27 AM new
Oh well, Toke, I tried
Cowardly still doesn't fit. Call them something along the lines of despicable. That fits. Cowardly doesn't. Cowardly - saving your own skin at the expense of anything. Killing yourself as part of a plan to kill someone else - not cowardly. Sorry, just doesn't fit.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:48:15 AM new
Depends, again, on how you look at it. You could call them cowards if you're considering their method. A sneak (and painless) attack on the defenseless, with no possibility of a counter-attack...always remembering they don't fear death. You could say they suffer an ignoble fear of not getting to those virgins.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:50:15 AM new
There are many words, most of which are unprintable here, to describe the suicide bombers, however, I think that cowardly does fit. These creatures are so pathetically cowardly that when another creature higher up in their chain of command orders them to kill and die, they follow their orders like lambs to the slaughter. All the while the "generals" in this "army" of idiots, hides themselves away, protected by their loyal (read: stupid cowardly) servents protect them! Cowards hide...If Bin Laden is not one, then let him come forward!
As for politics, I loathe politics, in the political arena, in business, in church, in schools and in everyday life! That said, instead of worrying about their political aspirations our political leaders had better wise up and make the solution to this problem a priority regardless of their political agenda or there will be only two parties left: dead & dying!
posted on September 27, 2001 12:19:42 PM new" that when another creature higher up in their chain of command orders them to kill and die, they follow their orders like lambs to the slaughter. All the while the "generals" in this "army" of idiots, hides themselves away, protected by their loyal (read: stupid cowardly) servents protect them!"
Errr, that pretty well defines ANY military service.
Now, a soldier who throws himself upon a grenade and is posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor--was he insane, cowardly, or unpatriotic?
By the way, protecting the president is not being questioned here. It's the whacky lies issued in the doing that are. Remember my post that if these terrorists, or anyone, has the codes for AF1 as was claimed in direct news release from the White house then we have a VERY big problem? Well, all of you just jumped up and down saying that if the white house said so it MUST be true. Does that fit into the stigmata of "follow their orders like lambs to the slaughter" too? If so, then by the definitions here all true believing 'patriots' are cowards. Follow?
any pothumous deserves to be spelled rit.
[ edited by krs on Sep 27, 2001 12:46 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 12:38:31 PM new
Why on earth did they lie about it? Common sense dictates that in a scenario such as that you would naturally not want your Commander in Chief to go rushing back to a spot that for all you know will momentarily be struck again.
The lies they told just plain make Bush look bad. It comes across as cowardice instead of common sense strategy. There was no need to lie.
Funny to see all the folks who can't seem to accept a lie over something that is none of the public's business, calmly accepting one over something that *is*.
posted on September 27, 2001 01:09:32 PM newcowardly does fit. These creatures are so pathetically ....."generals" in this "army" of idiots, hides themselves away, protected by their loyal (read: stupid cowardly) servents protect them! Cowards hide...
If we fall into the trap of thinking of them as cowards, as stupid idiots, or as insane, we will underestimate them. Underestimating them gave us Sept 11th.
I loathe politics, in the political arena, in business, in church, in schools and in everyday life!
I look at politics as the way we get things done without (at least most of the time) people bashing each others heads in. Doesn't mean it's pretty, just that it's preferable to the alternitive.
Then, rather than face what might come as a result of their actions, they died.
If they could have pulled off the same stunt without having to be on the plane, I'm sure they would have.
posted on September 27, 2001 01:40:39 PM new
Gotta agree with you Linda that the guy paying the band calls the tunes. No grip if the advertiser pulls the plug. Of course the buyer may pull the plug on them also if they want.
I value hearing the opposing view. I read more by people who don't agree with me than do. I mean how valuable is simply reinforcing what you already think?
posted on September 27, 2001 01:42:22 PM new
Bob Novak, on last weekend's CNN show, "Capital Gang," identified this (referring to Bush's speech before Congress) as "The Outrage of the Week."
"NOVAK: Was that Vice President Cheney seated, as usual, next to Speaker Hastert when President Bush addressed Congress? No, it was Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Senate's president pro-tem. Dick Cheney had been spirited away because the Secret Service said the U.S. Capitol wasn't safe for both president and vice president. The seeming theory is that terrorists could eliminate the president, Cabinet, Senate and House, Supreme Court, joint chiefs of staff, diplomatic corps and the Prime Minister of Britain -- but we'd still have Dick Cheney."
I thought that was hilarious. But it's true. It is Cheney who was being kept safe from the first moment, they moved him down to the safe place under the White House, he's important. Meanwhile, Bush kept on popping up here and there around the country That wasn't being safe, it was just silly. If you really want to keep the President safe, keep him safe. Either stick him in a safe place and leave him there, or keep him flying around without touching down, there are provisions for that.
But instead of doing either of those things, they did some kind of "whack-a-mole" maneuver, and of course some people are gonna say - "What's with that?"
So Bush's crew made up some story quickly, to answer that question. But the story they concocted was so ill-thought, it had to raise some suspicions. It was little more than a - "Oh well, things have been so safe that these codes have gotten around, everyone knows them, these things happen."
It's not the lie in and of itself that's the problem. Spin is expected. It was the amateurish way it was done.
posted on September 27, 2001 01:52:05 PM new
LindaK
You keep talking about your "commander in chief". We owe no blind allegiance
to any commander in chief here. Blind allegiance is what Hitler relied upon.
It's amusing to me, the number of Republicans who are calling for a non critical and unconditional approval of anything that the Bush administration may decide to do because... we are in a "war" and we must be patriotic.
Helen
"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race."
G.B.S.
Helen
ed to remove double sig.
[ edited by hjw on Sep 27, 2001 01:53 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 02:06:59 PM new
"whacky lies, donny. Whacky."
Yup, whacky. Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who's doing such a crummy job at walking and talking Bush. He's had a few good moments, but largely he looks undirected or misdirected.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:03:44 PM new
Probably a result of ideological
disagreements between Rove and Hughes in part, but mostly it's his own confusion from wanting his father's approval and never being sure that he'll get it.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:14:01 PM new
Of course they lied to us. That is just what politicians do automatically even if they don't need to do so. They lie to us about things they know the foreign powers already know all the time. Truth is like a currency they are reluctant to spend. They will lie about things that don't even matter just as an automatic thing like it keeps them in practice. I have a slime ball brother in law that is the same way. If you ask him what he had for breakfast he would lie just because he figures it is none of your business.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:20:01 PM new
Oh well, it's not only politicians or lawyers. If someone says "Hi, how are you?" you reply: " I'm fine!". In most cases it's a bald-faced lie.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:28:43 PM new
elfgifu - Here's to the hope that all our sons/daughters return safely. I feel foolish saying that as I know many will lose their lives, but I still felt a need to say it.
gravid - Yes, that's the way the game is played. (Whoever pays the band, etc...and then the on-going choices people have that you mentioned.)
HJW - For me this situation is about our country appearing unified. Much like being parents. We, mother and father, aren't always going to agree on how to discipline our children or to not discipline them at all. But hopefully in front of the children, we present a united front. I think that's what's happening now.
While I know full well that the Republicans and the Democrats aren't in agreement about much, they are presenting a united front to our attackers. To me that is Patriotism....being for our country above all else. This action wasn't taken against either party, it was taken against our nation.
And yes, I am of the opinion that while we may do our bickering behind close doors, our 'front' to the world should be that we as American's aren't going to allow this terrorism to continue to gain strength, if we can at all avoid it.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:50:13 PM new
Linda_K
A Democratic country such as ours will always be unified in disagreement and that's a healthy condition. It's been that way throughout history and George Bush will not change that fact.
About your child/parent analogy...
We are not his children. In fact, I sometimes feel that he is our child.
You say, "Patriotism....being for our country above all else"
I don't agree that patriotism should be above all else.
Patriotism irregardless of the welfare of other countries may take patriotism beyond the good which it is supposed to signify into a realm which is unhealthy for the world.
Helen
grammar ed.
[ edited by hjw on Sep 27, 2001 03:56 PM ]
[ edited by hjw on Sep 27, 2001 04:00 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 03:53:29 PM new
Well-said, Linda. We may not have agreed on all points today, but I grasp the unified front idea and concur.
Our thoughts are with all of the families of our military in this time of uncertainty.
posted on September 27, 2001 03:57:48 PM newThis notion of "patriotism" is being waved around like a club to whack anyone who dares voice that the emperor has no clothes.
Bulls-eye, donny. Here's a fine example of the club in action:
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., posted a police guard outside his congressional district office in Lowell, Mass., after receiving threatening phone calls. A newspaper had quoted Meehan as saying he didn't believe Air Force One was targeted by terrorists, the reason the White House gave for delaying President Bush's return to Washington the day of the attacks. Meehan said his views were misrepresented, and that he believed Bush has done ``an excellent job.''
The Congressman's comment was made on the day after the attack, I believe. He referred to the "Air-Force-One-as-target story" as "all spin." But see how quickly he changed his tune. Now it turns out he was right all along.
posted on September 27, 2001 04:07:08 PM new
Wouldn't it be nicer if the administration presented a unified and cohesive front too? But no, they don't keep their stories straight, seem to forget what was said yesterday when speaking today, and cause a confusion about what to believe amongst all but the densest of those they would inspire. It's really pretty insulting to know that they think that whatever they say will be taken as some sort of gospel.
posted on September 27, 2001 04:12:36 PM new
One of the topics on last night's "O'Reilly Factor" was whether or not voicing disapproval of the government's position was treasonous.
Treasonous?
Oh, for pity's sake.
Fonda in Hanoi was treasonous, not Joe/Josette Average standing at the roadside with a sign that reads "Down with War".
