Crusade? ...NOT!

[Larry H. Smith]

Snake, you sound a little provoked.

May the dung of a thousand camels clog my septic tank, if I fail to try to help you.

Perhaps it will be calming if you re-read one of your own posts, which I quote below, in it's profound entirety :

[[ "I do not get provoked by any heathens; especially one like
yourself. I leave the dirt from my sandals at your doorstep."]]

HTH,

Larry

FJBrad.... it is another instance of "The World According to
lhsmith and Rcih Gibson" They are going from thread to thread to
discredit anything that disagrees with their "World According to
Garp" syndrome. They are taking words out of context to suit their
needs and creating strife over them. In actuality it is their
comments that are out of context and creating the problems here.
One seems to compliment the other in everyone of these threads as
if they are both doing some great service to humanity with their
own contextual rantings. They can not stand on their own without
each one patting the other on the back for a job well done.
Denigrating somebody or something because of your lack of judgement
and because your context reading skills are less than adequate do
not give you a badge to condemn anybody for their words. You are
worse than the perpetrator and that seems to be you!

 

[Snake Plissken]

To the contrary Satan....you don't provoke me. How can a person with such a limited view of humankind, such as yourself, feel they can so easily affect soemone else's life, or even provoke, with such meaningless banter you provide as proof of our very existence in this world. I'd have admit you tried to provoke me several times though in different threads to no doubt. Because I respond to somebody in comment to your harassing nature does not mean I've said "uncle" to your seemingly simplistic view of the world. In fact, I have pity for a person such as yourself! It is sad that you are going to find out that the firehouse you so diligently used for 37 years as your lifesaver in the Fire Dept. is going to do you no good in the place you are destined for. I certainly "still leave the dirt from my sandals at your doorstep!"

May the dung of a thousand camels clog my septic tank, if I fail to
try to help you.

Perhaps it will be calming if you re-read one of your own posts,
which I quote below, in it's profound entirety :

[[ "I do not get provoked by any heathens; especially one like
yourself. I leave the dirt from my sandals at your doorstep."]]

HTH,

Larry

FJBrad.... it is another instance of "The World According to
lhsmith and Rcih Gibson" They are going from thread to thread to
discredit anything that disagrees with their "World According to
Garp" syndrome. They are taking words out of context to suit their
needs and creating strife over them. In actuality it is their
comments that are out of context and creating the problems here.
One seems to compliment the other in everyone of these threads as
if they are both doing some great service to humanity with their
own contextual rantings. They can not stand on their own without
each one patting the other on the back for a job well done.
Denigrating somebody or something because of your lack of judgement
and because your context reading skills are less than adequate do
not give you a badge to condemn anybody for their words. You are
worse than the perpetrator and that seems to be you!

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Snake,

I can't believe it! You've even figured-out my true identity!
I give up. You're too smart for me.

END OF TRANSMISSION!

May the dung of a thousand camels clog my septic tank, if I fail to
try to help you.

Perhaps it will be calming if you re-read one of your own posts,
which I quote below, in it's profound entirety :

[[ "I do not get provoked by any heathens; especially one like
yourself. I leave the dirt from my sandals at your doorstep."]]

HTH,

Larry

FJBrad.... it is another instance of "The World According to
lhsmith and Rcih Gibson" They are going from thread to thread to
discredit anything that disagrees with their "World According to
Garp" syndrome. They are taking words out of context to suit their
needs and creating strife over them. In actuality it is their
comments that are out of context and creating the problems here.
One seems to compliment the other in everyone of these threads as
if they are both doing some great service to humanity with their
own contextual rantings. They can not stand on their own without
each one patting the other on the back for a job well done.
Denigrating somebody or something because of your lack of judgement
and because your context reading skills are less than adequate do
not give you a badge to condemn anybody for their words. You are
worse than the perpetrator and that seems to be you!

 

[omaha41173]

can anyone please post the exact words of the sentence that pres. bush used the word "crusade" in? did he at any point in that speech use it in such a way that it implies a religious war? most english-speaking people would take it to mean simply as a fight against a perceived evil; most people would have probably let it pass by without second thought until some ultra PC people jumped on the perceived offensive word. does that mean that if president bush appealed to "all americans" to unite the rest of the world should feel slighted because they were not mentioned and that their feelings and offers of help were not appreciated? sometimes, americans are their own worst enemies.

some people who have nothing better to do over-analyze things to death. you know what bush meant, so stop second guessing him. nobody is turning this thing into a religious war except the people who are scared shitless over their own shadows.

So the Electoral College "elects" Bush for us.
O.K., that's our system, ...we'll go with it.

And now we will certainly support the nation's president as we deal
with this crisis.(...more significantly, support those who we send
to DO the actual "Dealing").

But I sure wish Bush wouldn't say anything unless his speech
writer's clear it first (some of THEM are quite good with words).

Now he has added(yesterday on tv) the word "crusade" to his war-talk.
Maybe he has seen too many old movies, and not enough history books.

The crusades were the Christian version of bin Laden's infata.
Slaughter with "God" on "our" side. The original source of the
Rambo-esque "Kill them all, and let God sort them out!" quote
(uttered by one of the "crusaders" in the middle of a massacre of
Muslim men, women, and children).

So now, when we need the cooperation of the peaceful muslims, to
deal with the terrorists that are blackening the name of their
religion, Bush, in a transparent attempt to pander to his
somewhat-alienated fudamentalist supporters, decides (FOR us) that
we're on a "crusade". (Is that "Onward Christian Soldiers" I hear
playing in the background?)

Bush, I for one will support a punitive
retaliation/annihilation(wish it were possible) of the terrorists
who have attacked us (and others).

I won't support a "religious" war. Don't confuse the issue by
turning this into one.

For what its worth, the symbolism isn't that flattering, when one
remembers that the "crusaders" ended-up getting their butts kicked
by Saladin.

I'll close with an endorsement of the sentiment already expressed
by another poster to this site:

"Spare me from religous fanatics" (theirs OR ours)!

Larry

 

[FJBrad]

Yes, let's agree to remain above it all.

Unable to determine the amount-or-lack-of sarcasm in the last
statement, I'll take it at face value, ...I agree! (To this extent
-- any further exchange between us, where the subject is
one-another, rather than the topic-under-discussion will take place
in private (see my offer above) or will be one sided, ...yours.

Larry

Larry,

I'm afraid that I concluded from the tone of your posts that, far from being putt-off, that you actually took some pleasure in this sort of keyboard jousting. I can see I misjudged you. My apologies.
Best Regards,
FJBrad

 

[Mark Grebner]

can anyone please post the exact words of the sentence that pres.
bush used the word "crusade" in? did he at any point in that speech
use it in such a way that it implies a religious war? most
english-speaking people would take it to mean simply as a fight
against a perceived evil; most people would have probably let it
pass by without second thought until some ultra PC people jumped on
the perceived offensive word. does that mean that if president bush
appealed to "all americans" to unite the rest of the world should
feel slighted because they were not mentioned and that their
feelings and offers of help were not appreciated? sometimes,
americans are their own worst enemies.

The term popped out of W's mouth during his press conference two days ago, clearly unscripted. Here's the unedited Q&A (transcript courtesy of the N.Y.Times):


Q. Mr. President, the attorney general is going to ask for enhanced law enforcement authority to surveil and do other things to disrupt terrorism that might be planed here in the United States. What will that mean for the rights of Americans? What will that mean for Americans?

A. Terry, I ask you to talk to the attorney general about that subject. He'll be prepared to talk about it publicly at some point in time. But what he is doing is he's reflecting what I said earlier in my statement, that we're facing a new kind of enemy, somebody so barbaric that they would fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. And therefore we have to be on alert in America. We're a nation of law, a nation of civil rights. We're also a nation under attack. And the attorney general will address that in a way that I think will the American people will understand.

We need to go back to work tomorrow and we will. But we need to be alert to the fact that these evildoers still exist. We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all on the same day to fly their aircraft, to fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people and show no remorse. And this is a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. Now, this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.

But I can assure the American people, I am determined. I'm not going to be distracted.

I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated with them will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice. It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century.


It seems clear that W. didn't intend to say anything offensive by his comment. It's also clear that his use of the term was extremely ill-advised. The problem isn't that the use of the term says something FALSE, but that it is TRUE in a way that the U.S. and the West really shouldn't want to discuss. The Crusades were precisely a series of wars of agression by Christian "civilization" against Islam, "infidels", and "heathen". After the slaughter of uncounted innocents, including huge numbers of Jews (who were the easiest to kill, since they weren't organized for war) the "infidels" won and drove the Christian armies back to the sea.

The West doesn't have any battles to celebrate, or any war heroes, but the East has plenty of them. Saladin, in particular, whose legend depicts him as relatively tolerant, forward-looking, brave, and devout.

Since the critical players in the present struggle are countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, calling for a new Crusade seems like a bad public relations move. ("Crusade" refers to the Christian Cross, of couse, which is not a big selling point in Mecca.)

Again, the problem was what W. meant, but that he didn't mean anything. And better briefing probably wouldn't have helped, since I'm sure he's already functioning near the limit of his attention and cognition.

 

[Jason Busch]

I recognize all of these posts, but let's get serious people. When we start fighting, who really cares about Bush's one-word mistake, if it really was. Jesus, this discussion sounds like another terrorist attack hit us.

When our soldiers are fighting and are blowing people up in little bits and pieces, I sincerely doubt they will stop re-load, and say to themselves, "Hmmmmmmm. Now, am I on a Crusade, or a Campaign? Or am I a part of a big Posse? Should I show my Unit's colors?"
Please.

We can all be English, Grammar, and History Professors after the many years of this war, but for now, I really don't think what Bush said is going to go down in the history books as the biggest mistake of mankind.

Jason Busch

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Jason,

I recognize all of these posts, but let's get serious people. When
we start fighting, who really cares about Bush's one-word mistake,
if it really was.

Absolutely.WHEN we start fighting. Right now we're just talking on a website.

This discussion has grown to the point that I can't figure out who is making the "bigger deal" of things, ..those who noticed the "mistake", or those who are upset because it WAS noticed.(?)

Jesus, this discussion sounds like another

terrorist attack hit us.

You mean because people keep adding posts to the thread? Hmmm.

When our soldiers are fighting and are blowing people up in little
bits and pieces, I sincerely doubt they will stop re-load, and say
to themselves, "Hmmmmmmm. Now, am I on a Crusade, or a Campaign? Or
am I a part of a big Posse? Should I show my Unit's colors?"
Please.
We can all be English, Grammar, and History Professors after the
many years of this war, but for now, I really don't think what Bush
said is going to go down in the history books as the biggest
mistake of mankind.

Absolutely again!
That's why he's not getting the "biggest" punishment "of mankind".
He's just being "criticised" a bit, here and elsewhere around the nation(world).

Hey, he's a president! Presidents get criticised. And people "notice" and think about what he says. That's what all those cameras and microphones are FOR! We're paying him to do-a-job, for heaven's sake, and some of us care how he goes about it! Part of that job is choosing words wisely. No one has said "string him up!".

Some of the comments that have been heard here sound a lot like "I don't agree, so SHUT-UP!"(I don't mean your post specifically, Jason)

UN-cool!

Jason Busch

Omaha? Just so those of us who happened to bring this up here don't look COMPLETELY foolish, let me say that a Harvard professor who is a Mid-east "expert" was on public radio today or yesterday, and he was commenting on the very-real effect such words have in the Muslim world. (many of whose people are "English speaking" as a matter-of-fact.)

It's a little bit "head-in-the-sand", to pretend that because WE don't think anything of a certain word, no "right-thinking" other person would either. The fact is that they DO. And in the present circumstances, what they think could save or cost some lives, since fighting or not-fighting depends on what our could-be-friends/could-be-enemies decide to do.

Larry

 

[Jason Busch]

lhsmith,

I was venting.
Probably llike everyone else.

Jason Busch

 

[Rich Gibson]

Snake,

Your imagination is running away with itself. I commented where I encountered stupid provocative remarks. True, stupid and provocative, for me, seems to come all to frequently from the left. Out of context? Excuse me but most of the heated discussions started (not by me) with out of context issues. As far as going through the web site seeking to compliment my alleged partner in crime..get a life.

For the record I spent a career in the Navy flying attack aircraft. I was airborne and in the vicinity when the Liberty was attacked. I spent many 9 month cruises away from my wife and three sons supporting and defending the constitution of the United States so that people could remain free to make comments, even if they are stupid and provocative. I have seven beautiful grand children whom I want to see grow up in a country free from terrorism.

I have no time for this nonsense. We have to get back to work and pull together. Why don't we all channel our nervous energy into some positive efforts instead of carping at each other?

Final transmission on these topics.

Rich Gibson, CDR USNR-Ret, USNA '64.

Dave and Rich (and others with similar comment),

Yes, I am well aware of the use of the term in different contexts.

It is the use of the term in THIS crisis, with it's connotations
for THESE "involved parties", when the other side is shouting 'holy
war", that put it almost-inescapeably into the context that I feel
is inapproriarte and in poor taste.

Larry

It was a careless choice of words. Obviously he didn't mean it in
the historical context of a holy war. Had someone not commented on
it, it would have gone unnoticed. As it is, those
blame-America-firsters are focusing in on it and taking PC to a new
level.
Perhaps people should learn to not be so easily offended.
Especially when they are so quick to label their President a
"moron" simply because they disagree with him and see an
opportunity for a dig. Pretty self-indulgent.
FJBrad

 

[omaha41173]

i wonder what kind of censure reagan might have had that famous"legislation to outlaw the soviet union forever" been uttered in this days of PC. i think bush's use of the word "crusade" offended those "experts" more than the people they were concerned about. so far, i haven't seen any flag-burning in arab countries protesting bush's insensitivity for using the words. it's not as if he called on christians to "unite in a crusade" against the evil muslim terrorists. that would be an altogether different scenario that would need to be really addressed.

can you remember how many "experts" over-analyzed the prevailing situation in the middle east during the kuwait campaign and warned us of such-and-such? how many of the scenarios they were afraid of came true and how many of them ended up with egg all over their faces? point is, there will always be "experts" claiming to know better than you and i what is good and what is bad (not to single out the harvard professor). what shall some overpolite pc people do next? introduce legislation banning the use of certain words that have been found to be ambiguous at best? or maybe draft something like this:

"mr. bin laden, may we please ask you to turn yourself in to the nearest american embassy? we promise to reimburse you for any expense you may incur in your trip. also, if you are found guilty and sentenced to death, you have the option of choosing whichever form of execution you prefer, to guarantee your right of choice. as it is, the cost of the planned undertaking is so huge that we could donate it to some poor countries instead of risking the ire of a segment of our society that thinks this money should be spent somewhere else. of course, we would have no control as to which pockets that money ends up but at least we would do the "morally better" thing. we also apologize to the governments of pakistan and afghanistan for whatever inconvenience this planned undertaking might cause them, and the sleepless nights our saber-rattling may have already caused. please mr. bin laden, we think that you have already caused enough damage and we understand that you have certain issues within yourself that need to be resolved. we would gladly offer the aid of our best psychiatrists to help you find the cause of your anger and deal with it, at no charge. and to all our arab and muslim friends, please, please understand that we are not against you, but only those who have so inconsiderately crashed two of our jets at the world trade center building. they could have just crashed it in the hudson river after letting all the passengers out and we would still have gotten their message. thank you very much for your understanding and we are looking forward to your reply."

what would you have thought of the word had the harvard professor not voiced his concern about it? or it was some third rate discredited street-preacher who raised the issue? would you have been as concerned as you would be now? i do not seek to make you or anyone look foolish but i know you could better for yourself and not be swayed by words. asking us to refrain from using otherwise normal words would be the better case for hiding our heads in the sand, because that would be refusing to acknowledge that this issue needs to be addressed, that certain misconceptions need to be dispelled, and that people need to let go of the past. in the end, that would save more lives than the interim measures that some people are suggesting. when something is wrong, you address the root cause and not merely the symptoms.

and oh, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand in case there is danger. they stay and fight.

I recognize all of these posts, but let's get serious people. When
we start fighting, who really cares about Bush's one-word mistake,
if it really was.

Absolutely.WHEN we start fighting. Right now we're just talking on
a website.

This discussion has grown to the point that I can't figure out who
is making the "bigger deal" of things, ..those who noticed the
"mistake", or those who are upset because it WAS noticed.(?)

Jesus, this discussion sounds like another

terrorist attack hit us.

You mean because people keep adding posts to the thread? Hmmm.

When our soldiers are fighting and are blowing people up in little
bits and pieces, I sincerely doubt they will stop re-load, and say
to themselves, "Hmmmmmmm. Now, am I on a Crusade, or a Campaign? Or
am I a part of a big Posse? Should I show my Unit's colors?"
Please.
We can all be English, Grammar, and History Professors after the
many years of this war, but for now, I really don't think what Bush
said is going to go down in the history books as the biggest
mistake of mankind.

Absolutely again!
That's why he's not getting the "biggest" punishment "of mankind".
He's just being "criticised" a bit, here and elsewhere around the
nation(world).

Hey, he's a president! Presidents get criticised. And people
"notice" and think about what he says. That's what all those
cameras and microphones are FOR! We're paying him to do-a-job, for
heaven's sake, and some of us care how he goes about it! Part of
that job is choosing words wisely. No one has said "string him up!".

Some of the comments that have been heard here sound a lot like "I
don't agree, so SHUT-UP!"(I don't mean your post specifically,
Jason)

UN-cool!

Jason Busch

Omaha? Just so those of us who happened to bring this up here
don't look COMPLETELY foolish, let me say that a Harvard professor
who is a Mid-east "expert" was on public radio today or yesterday,
and he was commenting on the very-real effect such words have in
the Muslim world. (many of whose people are "English speaking" as a
matter-of-fact.)

It's a little bit "head-in-the-sand", to pretend that because WE
don't think anything of a certain word, no "right-thinking" other
person would either. The fact is that they DO. And in the present
circumstances, what they think could save or cost some lives, since
fighting or not-fighting depends on what our
could-be-friends/could-be-enemies decide to do.

Larry

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Omaha,

(continuing, with reservations, the discussion):
I had to laugh at your suggested "pc letter to bin Laden". Well done!

i wonder what kind of censure reagan might have had that
famous"legislation to outlaw the soviet union forever" been
uttered in this days of PC. i think bush's use of the word
"crusade" offended those "experts" more than the people they were
concerned about. so far, i haven't seen any flag-burning in arab
countries protesting bush's insensitivity for using the words. it's
not as if he called on christians to "unite in a crusade" against
the evil muslim terrorists. that would be an altogether different
scenario that would need to be really addressed.

can you remember how many "experts" over-analyzed the prevailing
situation in the middle east during the kuwait campaign and warned
us of such-and-such? how many of the scenarios they were afraid of
came true and how many of them ended up with egg all over their
faces? point is, there will always be "experts" claiming to know
better than you and i what is good and what is bad (not to single
out the harvard professor). what shall some overpolite pc people do
next?

Of course, people (experts or not) will have and express opinions. Is that not what we are all doing here?

And when discussing the future, many of them(us) will get-it-wrong. So it should not be discussed?, ...or should be discussed only by those who can all agree?

I am really disappointed that the dreaded "pc" label has made an appearance here. For my money, the merits of any ideas presented could be weighed without its use.

In case it needs to be said, anyone who knows me would tell you that I am the last person they would consider "pc".

ntroduce legislation banning the use of certain words that

have been found to be ambiguous at best? or maybe draft something
like this:

"mr. bin laden, may we please ask you to turn yourself in to the
nearest american embassy? we promise to reimburse you for any
expense you may incur in your trip. also, if you are found guilty
and sentenced to death, you have the option of choosing whichever
form of execution you prefer, to guarantee your right of choice. as
it is, the cost of the planned undertaking is so huge that we could
donate it to some poor countries instead of risking the ire of a
segment of our society that thinks this money should be spent
somewhere else. of course, we would have no control as to which
pockets that money ends up but at least we would do the "morally
better" thing. we also apologize to the governments of pakistan and
afghanistan for whatever inconvenience this planned undertaking
might cause them, and the sleepless nights our saber-rattling may
have already caused. please mr. bin laden, we think that you have
already caused enough damage and we understand that you have
certain issues within yourself that need to be resolved. we would
gladly offer the aid of our best psychiatrists to help you find the
cause of your anger and deal with it, at no charge. and to all our
arab and muslim friends, please, please understand that we are not
against you, but only those who have so inconsiderately crashed two
of our jets at the world trade center building. they could have
just crashed it in the hudson river after letting all the
passengers out and we would still have gotten their message. thank
you very much for your understanding and we are looking forward to
your reply."

what would you have thought of the word had the harvard professor
not voiced his concern about it?

Apparently you underestimate some of us.

My reaction/opinion re. Bush's words occurred as-I-heard-them. The "professor" commented on the air some time afterward(next day I think, or the one after), as my posts made clear. You have got my feathers up a little here, ...NO ONE tells me what to think.

or it was some third rate

discredited street-preacher who raised the issue? would you have
been as concerned as you would be now?

EXACTLY "as concerned", since I formed my own opinion, it was not handed to me.

(but let's remember that the length of this thread could easily make it seem that a "federal case" is being made here. As I have stated elsewhere, criticism of this (or ANY) president is not "taboo", at least here in the US. He "goofed". We said so. That simple!

i do not seek to make you or

anyone look foolish but i know you could better for yourself and
not be swayed by words. asking us to refrain from using otherwise
normal words would be the better case for hiding our heads in the
sand, because that would be refusing to acknowledge that this issue
needs to be addressed, that certain misconceptions need to be
dispelled, and that people need to let go of the past. in the end,
that would save more lives than the interim measures that some
people are suggesting. when something is wrong, you address the
root cause and not merely the symptoms.

and oh, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand in case there
is danger. they stay and fight.

Not being an ostrich expert myself, I'll take your word for it. But I think I understand the commonly-accepted meaning of the phrase as-I-used-it. (Or did I pull a "Bush"?

Nice talking to you,

Larry

I recognize all of these posts, but let's get serious people. When
we start fighting, who really cares about Bush's one-word mistake,
if it really was.

Absolutely.WHEN we start fighting. Right now we're just talking on
a website.

This discussion has grown to the point that I can't figure out who
is making the "bigger deal" of things, ..those who noticed the
"mistake", or those who are upset because it WAS noticed.(?)

Jesus, this discussion sounds like another

terrorist attack hit us.

You mean because people keep adding posts to the thread? Hmmm.

When our soldiers are fighting and are blowing people up in little
bits and pieces, I sincerely doubt they will stop re-load, and say
to themselves, "Hmmmmmmm. Now, am I on a Crusade, or a Campaign? Or
am I a part of a big Posse? Should I show my Unit's colors?"
Please.
We can all be English, Grammar, and History Professors after the
many years of this war, but for now, I really don't think what Bush
said is going to go down in the history books as the biggest
mistake of mankind.

Absolutely again!
That's why he's not getting the "biggest" punishment "of mankind".
He's just being "criticised" a bit, here and elsewhere around the
nation(world).

Hey, he's a president! Presidents get criticised. And people
"notice" and think about what he says. That's what all those
cameras and microphones are FOR! We're paying him to do-a-job, for
heaven's sake, and some of us care how he goes about it! Part of
that job is choosing words wisely. No one has said "string him up!".

Some of the comments that have been heard here sound a lot like "I
don't agree, so SHUT-UP!"(I don't mean your post specifically,
Jason)

UN-cool!

Jason Busch

Omaha? Just so those of us who happened to bring this up here
don't look COMPLETELY foolish, let me say that a Harvard professor
who is a Mid-east "expert" was on public radio today or yesterday,
and he was commenting on the very-real effect such words have in
the Muslim world. (many of whose people are "English speaking" as a
matter-of-fact.)

It's a little bit "head-in-the-sand", to pretend that because WE
don't think anything of a certain word, no "right-thinking" other
person would either. The fact is that they DO. And in the present
circumstances, what they think could save or cost some lives, since
fighting or not-fighting depends on what our
could-be-friends/could-be-enemies decide to do.

Larry

 

[Larry H. Smith]

CDR. Gibson,

Despite what certain reptiles may read into it, I'd like to express my appreciation for your military service on our behalf. I occasionally stop the driver of a car with a "Nam"-ribbon sticker to shake his hand, for the same reason. (interestingly, and sadly, I have gotton both stunned looks and tears in return, from some.)

Since you mention being in-the-air during the Liberty attack, and if you are willing to share them (either here or via private e-mail) I would be very interested in any remarks you might make in response to the report posted at this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&page=1&message=1522041

If you are bound by any "security restraints" that would prevent your honest response, I'd prefer no-answer to"dis-information".

Respectfully, and thanks again,

Larry [ [email protected] ]

Snake,

Your imagination is running away with itself. I commented where I
encountered stupid provocative remarks. True, stupid and
provocative, for me, seems to come all to frequently from the left.
Out of context? Excuse me but most of the heated discussions
started (not by me) with out of context issues. As far as going
through the web site seeking to compliment my alleged partner in
crime..get a life.

For the record I spent a career in the Navy flying attack aircraft.
I was airborne and in the vicinity when the Liberty was attacked.
I spent many 9 month cruises away from my wife and three sons
supporting and defending the constitution of the United States so
that people could remain free to make comments, even if they are
stupid and provocative. I have seven beautiful grand children whom
I want to see grow up in a country free from terrorism.

I have no time for this nonsense. We have to get back to work and
pull together. Why don't we all channel our nervous energy into
some positive efforts instead of carping at each other?

Final transmission on these topics.

Rich Gibson, CDR USNR-Ret, USNA '64.

 

[JmRy]

Well you may have second thoughts when Bush takes this opportunity
to invade Chad to prevent another election like the last one.

John,

I can't believe your post has gone unnoticed by the serious people this long! I have visions of U.S. troops "hanging Chads" in enough numbers to make the next election a breeze. I think he may also include several counties in Florida in his campaign. That invasion will begin after the Air Force rolls out its newest attack jet: the "butterfly." {:Þ

All of you readers with an ounce of humor, hang in there! This nasty stuff too will end. (despite politicians and serious postings)

John
as Readers Digest aptly points out "laughter is the best medicine"

 

[Larry H. Smith]

John-John,

I, for one, didn't respond because you were so obviously "on a different channel".

Bush would NEVER invade Chad, ...he is PRAYING for another "election like the last one". It's his only hope for getting to stay in "his" house.

Well you may have second thoughts when Bush takes this opportunity
to invade Chad to prevent another election like the last one.

John,

I can't believe your post has gone unnoticed by the serious people
this long! I have visions of U.S. troops "hanging Chads" in enough
numbers to make the next election a breeze. I think he may also
include several counties in Florida in his campaign. That invasion
will begin after the Air Force rolls out its newest attack jet: the
"butterfly." {:

Boy, you never know WHO is a spy. The "Happy Hooker" used to talk about the butterfly! Whooda thought?

All of you readers with an ounce of humor, hang in there! This
nasty stuff too will end. (despite politicians and serious postings)

John
as Readers Digest aptly points out "laughter is the best medicine"

Most politicians will begrudgingly admit this. But the "devout" are a whole different animal. They say laughter is also "contagious", but when I laugh at someone's piety, they never seem to "catch" it. Could I be doing it wrong? (I'll try harder!)

Larry

PS: for conclusion-jumpers, and the insatiably-curious,... I voted for Bush. NOT enthusiastically. Didn't think he was perfect then. Don't now. The usual "lesser evil" US election, in my unhappy judgement). (This last note added to validate my "serious-poster" status.)

 

[omaha41173]

larry,

to paraphrase a line from the american president "freedom is respecting a person shouting his beliefs at the top of his lungs though you would spend a lifetime opposing it at the top of yours." going this far in this friendly banter without resorting to vitriolic words or personal insults shows that we still can argue without fighting. hopefully we may continue to do so.

 

[hatem tawfik]

Dave

I dont think lhsmith is overreacting. After hearing Bush's words to "give muslims and arab americans the respect THEY DESERVE" ( they natrurally dont deserve anything now, DO THEY ??), and after reading the word CRUSADE, every body in the middle east is preparing for war, we are expecting a nuclear attack, even on Egypt who is a strong ally of the United states, we all expect Cairo To be nuked by the US, after all you have done it Before.

Hatem Tawfik
Cairo Egypt

Dave N

So the Electoral College "elects" Bush for us.
O.K., that's our system, ...we'll go with it.

And now we will certainly support the nation's president as we deal
with this crisis.(...more significantly, support those who we send
to DO the actual "Dealing").

But I sure wish Bush wouldn't say anything unless his speech
writer's clear it first (some of THEM are quite good with words).

Now he has added(yesterday on tv) the word "crusade" to his war-talk.
Maybe he has seen too many old movies, and not enough history books.

The crusades were the Christian version of bin Laden's infata.
Slaughter with "God" on "our" side. The original source of the
Rambo-esque "Kill them all, and let God sort them out!" quote
(uttered by one of the "crusaders" in the middle of a massacre of
Muslim men, women, and children).

So now, when we need the cooperation of the peaceful muslims, to
deal with the terrorists that are blackening the name of their
religion, Bush, in a transparent attempt to pander to his
somewhat-alienated fudamentalist supporters, decides (FOR us) that
we're on a "crusade". (Is that "Onward Christian Soldiers" I hear
playing in the background?)

Bush, I for one will support a punitive
retaliation/annihilation(wish it were possible) of the terrorists
who have attacked us (and others).

I won't support a "religious" war. Don't confuse the issue by
turning this into one.

For what its worth, the symbolism isn't that flattering, when one
remembers that the "crusaders" ended-up getting their butts kicked
by Saladin.

I'll close with an endorsement of the sentiment already expressed
by another poster to this site:

"Spare me from religous fanatics" (theirs OR ours)!

Larry

 

[hatem tawfik]

Dave

I dont think lhsmith is overreacting. After hearing Bush's words to
"give muslims and arab americans the respect THEY DESERVE" ( they
natrurally dont deserve anything now, DO THEY ??), and after
reading the word CRUSADE, every body in the middle east is
preparing for war, we are expecting a nuclear attack, even on Egypt
who is a strong ally of the United states, we all expect Cairo To
be nuked by the US, after all you have done it Before.

Hatem Tawfik
Cairo Egypt

And I dont think it was a slip either.

 

[omaha41173]

Dave

I dont think lhsmith is overreacting. After hearing Bush's words to
"give muslims and arab americans the respect THEY DESERVE" ( they
natrurally dont deserve anything now, DO THEY ??), and after
reading the word CRUSADE, every body in the middle east is
preparing for war, we are expecting a nuclear attack, even on Egypt
who is a strong ally of the United states, we all expect Cairo To
be nuked by the US, after all you have done it Before.

Hatem Tawfik
Cairo Egypt

And I dont think it was a slip either.

"all?" " everybody?" "they naturally don't deserve anything now, do they?" are you seriously trying to make everybody believe that all the people in the middle east think like you? if so, then we indeed, are in a lot bigger trouble than we initially thought. please separate your personal opinion from the beliefs of others.

there were only two instance whens atomic weapons were used in hostility, and those were in nagasaki in hiroshima, and that is not out of pure desire to annihiate the japanese. if you are unfamiliar with the reasons for the difficult choice arrived at by harry truman, please research the history books. had it not been employed, the casualty figures in world war ii would have been infinitely higher.

 

[doug44784]

hatem-

i have to disagree... 'crusade' was a poor choice of words, but it is neither the desire of the president or of the average american on the street to kill innocent arabs and/or muslims. every society has its morons... the morons in the US are currently harrasing anyone that looks arab. hell, i must have heard twenty times in the past two days some white house spokesman or another saying americans need to prepare for a new kind of war. translation: you won't see revenge, smart bombs, the enemy, or obvious victories on cnn or in the newspapers. the "war on terrorsim" will be fought largely in secrecy. it won't be on television... anywhere. and the US will only be one of the players. what i am afraid of is the US taking out the taliban, and subsequently being seen as the cause of all of the existing ills in afghanistan... thus giving every child evern more reason to become a terrorist against the west. this is truly an important time in history and all nations need to carefully consider every move. i believe the US leadership understands this... at least i hope they do. i think that is why they keep repeating (time and time again) to prepare for a new kind of war: americans (while not wanting to kill innocents) are angry ans want those responsible punished... the administration is making preemptive strikes at public opinion; knowing that what they are willing to do will not even come close to healing the wounds of the WTC tragedy. what could?!

Dave

I dont think lhsmith is overreacting. After hearing Bush's words to
"give muslims and arab americans the respect THEY DESERVE" ( they
natrurally dont deserve anything now, DO THEY ??), and after
reading the word CRUSADE, every body in the middle east is
preparing for war, we are expecting a nuclear attack, even on Egypt
who is a strong ally of the United states, we all expect Cairo To
be nuked by the US, after all you have done it Before.

Hatem Tawfik
Cairo Egypt