> In a message dated 10/1/01 1:24:47 PM, email@example.com writes:
> >Maher is saying that purposely crashing four airplanes full of generally
> >pacifistic people into buildings full of pacifistic people is more
> >courageous than purposely dropping cruise missiles from 2000 miles away
> >on a country full of highly skilled warriors who love little else but
> >warring and mayhem in very personal in your face circumstances...
> You're falling into the error he was attacking - brave means brave, not
> good. Bombing the WTC was very evil, but you'd have to be quite brave
> to do it. Firing the cruise missles might be good or evil, but requires
> no bravery.
The problem is that, in military tradition, seeking to die in battle is
generally foolish and cowardly. The 'heroes' who die with little
military gain but a battle cry are a waste of resources that could be
spent training someone who uses themselves in ways to benefit victory.
If such lived instead, they would generally be court martialed for the
stupid acts that kill them.
Furthermore, it is indeed cowardly to shoot or otherwise kill unarmed
civilians. Dying in the act of doing so is doubly cowardly, since one
thereby avoids facing the consequences of their actions (i.e. the war
Flicking a switch to launch a cruise missile against a bunch of foaming
at the mouth fanatics only proves the point that 'discretion is the
better part of valor'. When fighting an enemy, you don't let him decide
on the ground and means by which you fight. You pick the time, the
ground, and the means, you do it to him first and hard. Study up on your
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT