Why is the US ambassador to Ireland, Richard Egan, attending a terrorist convention in Dublin?
The convention includes people from Sinn Fein-IRA, ETA, PLO and the FALN from Porto Rico. The first three have close links to Colombia's FARC.
Posted on 09/29/2001 11:32:57 AM PDT by quimby
(1) We may, if we choose, redefine language, but this does not give us the right to then project our new definition onto someone who has assumed that the word means what it has always, previously, meant.
(2) By the stated definition, we do not know whether the terrorists were cowards or not. Yes, it could be said that they risked nothing they valued. But that would merely make them "not heroes." However, these men did value some things of this life, it is just that they did not value them highly, highly enough to cause them to turn in fear of loss.
(3) Be honest, you who would use "coward" in this way. What you really mean is "A coward is someone dedicated to a cause that I abhor."
I stand with those who realize that to call these fanatics cowards is dangerous. To defend ourselves against them, we need to understand them, otherwise we will be unable to anticipate their actions.
This newspeak started with Reagan, who called those who truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, "cowards." Yet they were from villages being shelled, at that time, by our forces, and they attacked a purely military target.
Calling others "cowards" is essentially juvenile fighting talk. When one calls another a coward -- anyone remember what it was like in high school? -- it is to dare him to fight, practically to force him to fight. He will either fight to prove he is not a coward, or he will slink away in shame, one imagines.
These fanatics are not going to slink away in shame. Calling them cowards will probably not give them, now, any additional motive to fight, they are already all too motivated, but was that true at the time of the Lebanon barracks bombing?
There is another current article here from Bernard Lewis, an expert on Islam, who sees the source of the anti-American hatred in, essentially, an emasculation of Muslims by the forces of history, with the United States a convenient scapegoat. If he is right, calling them cowards could only intensify the hatred.
Bill Maher's comment, which I heard when it was broadcast, made we wince, not because it was incorrect, but because it could be heard as calling our airmen "cowards." He did not intend that implication, I am quite sure -- he was actually agreeing with a conservative guest at the time --, but he certainly stuck his foot in his mouth.
Notice he's attacking our service people, not Bill Clinton for coming up with the policy. Clinton was ten thousand miles away.
"And if the word `cowardly' is to be used," she [Susan Sontag] continued, "it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky,
Again, since Clinton killed from the Oval Office, and not from 'high in the sky,' this is a deliberate attack against US military service people -- while deliberately excluding Clinton from responsibility.
Conservatives need to carefully parse the words of liberals. You'll find that every sentence contains an Inner Lie. The Inner Lie of the Maher/Sontag statements is that liberals are not complicit in Clinton's cowardly bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and the Sudan aspirin factory. As the historical evidence surfaces that these bombings were unwarranted and murderous, liberals seek to create an historical mythology which pins the blame on the conservative-Republican military.
Just the other nite, maher called Bush's Faith Based initiative a "FAITH BASED ATTACK."
I submit the definition I put forth is more descriptive of the word's modern context than that which is in the dictionary. I'd be happy to hear the opinions of other posters on this subject.
(2) By the stated definition, we do not know whether the terrorists were cowards or not. Yes, it could be said that they risked nothing they valued. But that would merely make them "not heroes." However, these men did value some things of this life, it is just that they did not value them highly, highly enough to cause them to turn in fear of loss.
These men took the easiest way out, in their demented view. For them, killing infidels led them to the ultimate paradise. Even in their twisted worldview, they could have chosen to kill Americans while not killing themselves, so they could live to "fight" another day. Instead they committed suicide, AKA the coward's way out.
(3) Be honest, you who would use "coward" in this way. What you really mean is "A coward is someone dedicated to a cause that I abhor."
I already stated what a coward is, in my definition above. But I guess in your opinion, any murder-suicide cannot involve a coward. Quite a strange way of thinking.
Excellent points. Revising history is a favoite tactic of the left.
How can giving up something that is not valued even be considered a sacrifice? You might as well ask, "Are soldier ants that give their lives in service of "the ant nest" cowardly or brave?"
The question can't really be answered, since free will is not involved when the ants commit the 'military' actions that lead to their own demise.
Since the terrorists were brainwashed, I don't think that they had much free will left, at the time of their deaths. I don't think they can be considered brave, any more than the "Heaven's Gate" cult members could be considered brave when they killed themselves. Since the terrorists didn't have free will, they could not be considered cowardly either.
American soldiers who fire at the enemy from a distance are "smart." The distance has nothing to do with their bravery or cowardice. They might be brave, they might be cowards.
Good point.
Even if you don't watch the show,some of the products you buy support him. They are using a lot of car ads now, and the sponsors are claiming they have no control over which shows their ads may appear on. This is a lie.
Contact Jeep, mitsubihi, and nissan.
There is another current article here from Bernard Lewis, an expert on Islam, who sees the source of the anti-American hatred in, essentially, an emasculation of Muslims by the forces of history, with the United States a convenient scapegoat. If he is right, calling them cowards could only intensify the hatred.
I believe that avoiding harsh words to describe Arab terrorists is a moot point, now.
As for the "heros" of Maher let us not forget that they careened into their targets with hundreds of innocent children (some from an inner city who had won a contest to the capital), women of the quality of Barbara Olson, and men who were true American heros by thwarting the efforts of some of Mr. Maher's icons.
I am absolutely livid for his insensitivity to the American citizens who were forced to go down with this suicidal mission by these "heroic" idols of Maher. What an insult to their memory and their surviving loved ones.
There was nothing honorable about what they did and Mr. Maher should be properly castigated for his utterly wild words.
Even his weaseling and backtracking now is offensive to me.
Maher, I know a coward when I see one and YOU, sir, are one!
These COWARDS had convinced themselves that they were going to receive the highest award in the universe. They did not face their enemy, they attacked their enemy when their enemy had their backs turned. These guys knew they would feel no pain, yet look at all the pain they inflicted on others.
To call these people COWARDS is to praise them beyond anything they could possibly deserve! There are no words for someone who would do such a thing. I only hope they can find their bodies so I can piss on their graves.
If I incorrectly indetified your allegence, I apologise. But your statement describes the tactics of the left. Obfuscate and revise. Media power enabled the nazi's, media power enabled clintoon.
"Unless abandoned, Political Correctness may become America's epitaph, although there may not be a solid piece of stone left on which to inscribe it. The ambivalence and tentativeness that PC has created has increased our jeopardy, has put America into vaporlock, and, however soothingly Bush croons his words of assurance, the American people's hearts are not in it. America has become an emotional halfway house for halfway people to take halfway measures."
Ahh, but truth is always distored.
No definition or measurement is ever "correct".
If it's a tactic, learn from it, use it in anyway that you believe is "acceptable".
Use your advantage to your advantage.
Add their uniqueness to your own.
David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, said the magazine received more than 100 letters in response, which, he observed, "is a heck of a lot." Most of them were angered by Ms. Sontag's questioning of the word "coward," he said. One letter will be published.
And how much do you want to bet that the one letter published will be praising Sontag?
Why is the US ambassador to Ireland, Richard Egan, attending a terrorist convention in Dublin?
The convention includes people from Sinn Fein-IRA, ETA, PLO and the FALN from Porto Rico. The first three have close links to Colombia's FARC.
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.