Be american!!

Because people do not like them, and (quite rightly, in my view) regard their actions as morally indefensible.

They confuse cowardice with their dislike and condemnation.

It is possible they also confuse recognizing the courage involved in putting your life on the line with supporting their actions.

I think it is perfectly possible to be very courageous in the pursuit of very wrong action.

I think the attribution of cowardice to terrorists as a matter of course is stupid.

Of course, people will probably argue that hitting "soft" targets, which terrorists often do, as opposed to engaging with the military of countries whose policies they oppose, is cowardice. However, terrorists usually spring from causes whose strength is not capable of engaging successfully with the military might of their opponents - (eg the failed directness of Easter 1916 vs the terror tactics of the IRA) - and they come to believe that terror is their only chance of success. Nonetheless, they face death as much as regular troops do - even if they are not suicide attackers.

Cowardice would not, generally, be an accusation I would make against them.

Now - just watch all the folk who think I have just supported terrorism attack - validating "It is possible they also confuse recognizing the courage involved in putting your life on the line with supporting their actions."!

I agree with your points, but I think I phrased my question poorly. I mainly want to hear from someone who actually supports it. To me it is the same as saying "They are bad, therefor they probably taste like liver... because liver tastes bad." Again, I say that to me it is the same.

As for nuclear ox's thesis - well, letting its idiocy and malevolence speak for itself is probably comment enough.

Fox - unlike Craven, I am stunned by your support of such drivel.

I do not call them cowards. I call them what they are: murderers who target innocents, who create unbelievable suffering, who are without conscience, and all for their own glory and reward.

Yeah - I knew what you wanted, but I couldn't resist!!!

I think the reasons will come down to those I presented, anyway, but put positively.

dlowan writes


I wouldn't have phrased it the way Nuclear Ox did mostly because I would know it would get the reaction it did from the left. I could, however,see myself saying something that outrageous when I knew my audience would accept it as exaggeration for effect which I believe is the case here. If Nuclear Ox actually does come back and says he actually means it, then he can be taken more seriously.

Mostly I hate to see a new member piled on until he gets settled in. He's being chided for being 'unaccepting of others' points of view' while his point of view is being slammed as unacceptable. That just doesn't quite make it on the fairness meter. I think we should encourage new members instead of running them off. (Of course I don't doubt some of you wish I would go away but I'm pretty stubborn. )

Fox - when a new member comes in with such stupid and outrageous drek as this - clearly meant to annoy and provoke - the reaction would be, by my preference, to ignore it, as one does stupid behaviour by a toddler, unless it breaks important rules.

Since this did not happen, it would appear rude not to give this person their fun, and to challenge their ridiculous nonsense.

I think you are overly kind to assume that "third world" punishments for freedom of speech - and kidnap - are a joke.

Okay dlowan. I'm pretty good at spotting the intentional antagonists from both sides of the political spectrum. I don't think Nuclear Ox is one of those. I could be wrong.

I agree with Foxfyre.

Shall we wait for Nuke to return?

Sounds exactly what like the shrub has done.

Nah. Pre-emptive strike.

I hear they are big these days....

An allusion to Iraq, I assume?

SCoates: I guess I might have chosen a different word, but there is something about people who hide among us waiting for the opportunity to do harm to innocent people that seems to me to be cowardly.

Fox's description was probably more precise: "I do not call them cowards. I call them what they are: murderers who target innocents, who create unbelievable suffering, who are without conscience, and all for their own glory and reward. "

The point of my post, however, was not to describe terrorists, but to be sure I understood N.O.'s qualification that dissent was ok, and that dissent was not being equated to hatred for America.

Just curious, I realize it was a digression.

Damn straight! Some guy down the street said he had the potential capacity to maybe one day possibly hurt me.

I went over to his place and kicked the sh*t outta him.

Seriously though, lets let nuke ox come back and clear the air a bit. It is his thread, ya know...

He can come back anytime he wants, but he's not getting my corner.

I still want to know what IS an acceptable punishment for those loyal Americans horrified by the direction they're country is being taken by that psychopath in the white house.

I think you better get over here in the corner with me Wilso, as I suspect things will start shooting across the room shortly ;-)

Huddled in the corner with Montana. That would be heaven!