Posted on 08/10/2006 7:11:55 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
I look at this as Williams just being a liberal, incompetent boob. I don't think he honestly meant to compare our SEALs and Rangers to Muslim terrorists. He grossly misspoke and FReepers should chalk it up to stupidity and not get too bent out of shape over this.
I made that point in the post's opening sentence. Nevertheless, he should never, ever have mentioned terrorists and our special forces in the same breath. And his comment really does ignore the fundamental difference of the terrorist seeking to kill innocent civilians and our guys taking risks to protect them.
Well then, I hope he clarifies his mistake.Soon.
I included the closed-caption transcript in the original post.
It's just that the liberals attempts at being/appearing patriotic is so unnatural for them that it comes out all goofed up!!
Pitiful.
William's remarks are the same as Reggie White's speech years ago about how whites make money, how Hispanics fit a dozen people in a home, how blacks can sing and dance, how Asians make things out of nothing...It sounds stupid to say on its face but underneath it all there's a grain of truth.
I'll post what I posted on the other thread:
Yes, I heard it; and I didn't take it this way at all.
It was in reply to a question Matthews asked after the two of them had been discussing today's terror plot; Williams was saying that we, Americans, had to come to terms with this being the way it is now, with our "enemy" not coming over the nearest ridge with helments on, but are "our enemies" come toward us in "slender tubes at 39,000 feet.
They were discussing this in the context of them versus the west; Matthews asked him how he thought we could ever defeat an enemy who was born in Britain, lived in Britain, and still was willing to die for his religion, ie., these ARE Westerners.
Williams said he wasn't sure how we'd ever manage that -- and that's when he got ahead of himself.
I didn't think a thing about it, other than the fact that he didn't realize how he PHRASED the answer.
***And you have to understand that Matthews started off this segment by saying that John Edwards had been on at the 5 p.m. show and said that if the Muslims could just MEET us and TALK to us, they'd love us.
"I always tell people"
Not off the cuff.
Look at what he is saying. He's telling people that WE have people who are willing to die for their country. He's not comparing them, IMO.
Hm. I use that analogy all of the time!! When people start that line about how many have died in Iraq, I ALWAYS say "and how may die in LA a year, where there's not even a war!??! Should we pull out from there too??"
Shuts them right up!
As I said on the other thread, I KNEW it would offend somebody on here and wasn't the least bit surprised to see a thread up -- complete with the misrepresentation.
NOT THIS THREAD. governsleastgovernsbest did a great job of getting this done (except for the title......LOL..he didn't say anything close to that).
Just want to be clear it wasn't this "Williams".
Did Williams say willing to die for their country or take ones life??
I trust your opinion .. and I'm sure you are correct that he misspoke
But I have to admit .. what was reported up thread comes off very badly on Williams
OK, you're officially off the hook ;-)
I commented over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681486/posts
I thought it was your post without even looking. LOL
Everyone very angry about this, too.
Those sentences are the whole exchange? Oh come on, if that's all there is, there's nothing.
Here is my paraphrase of Williams's comment:
Our enemies have proven their willingness to die for their cause, but we have extraordinary warriors on our side who are willing to die to stop them.
Enough of this nonsense.
It's always possible, of course, that Williams was only attempting to comment on the assumption that those on both sides have people who feel they are acting bravely, despite the relative causes, and that he didn't mean to directly compare the causes themselves and raise them to the same level of legitimacy and importance. To be fair, it wouldn't be too far out of the question to give Williams the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But, that he would so quickly wish to somehow prove that Jihadists are also "brave" in that they are willing to give their lives to their causes is, in itself, disturbingly close to also equalizing their cause to legitimacy and "goodness" -- whether he wanted to or not.
After all, how "brave" is it to give your life for an evil cause?
Let's face it, in our society one equates giving your life for your country to the highest form of bravery. And that bravery is used in a positive context, as opposed to a negative one. So, Williams' positively denoting a Jihadist's willingness to give his life for his cause would, in general parlayence, reflect that said Jihadists are also brave. This would lead one to an assumption that the cause that one is dying for is also worth being brave for!
So, sadly, Williams seems to see no difference between the bravery of our soldiers and emergency services personnel and that of those who would die for those 72 virgins. And, if he so quickly imagines that Jihadists are also brave enough to die for their cause then we cannot escape the conclusion that he either sees neither cause (the Jihadist's or ours) as any better one from the other, or he really DOES think both causes have the same legitimacy.
Either way, his sense of moral judgment is in doubt at this point
Yea, IF ONLY HE HAD SAID THAT!!
The point, tho, is that he didn't!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.