Bumble Bee Tuna

On this same note, I see stories on casualties called "America's Bravest". WTF? Now, bravery does have to do with being willing to put yourself in danger, but that does not mean that those who get killed are the "Bravest". I heard the guys hit by the suicide trucker called "America's Bravest". Sorry, but they got caught off-guard and their deaths were not brave. I'm sure they were brave if they were in the army but their death does not qualify as a brave one. It is disappointing that these days "hero" refers to 'someone who has been through some shit and the media heard about it'. Fuck the media, they can kiss my ass.

-B

fando

That's a good point. Lynch might not end up deeply traumatized, but I'm no psychologist.

CALDONIA

The media nowadays toss about the words "bravery" and "hero" with so little perspective or care that they have almost lost their meanings.

Butch O'Hare and Audie Murphy were "heroes" in WWII because of the acts they performed in combat. They would not have been considered heroes just for being in combat, brave maybe.

Remember when after the death of his son, Bill Cosby said that his son was his [Bill Cosby's] "hero?" Was this the start of the dumbing down of the term? Just a thought.

Sauron

Yes. And his name is Allah.

Jesse

An interview with Mohammed, the Iraqi who gave the tip:

Iraqi informer angered by treatment of POW

sullster

I am no theist and despise fundamentalism, yet I just cannot join in with fundy bashing because this girl comes from a fundy family. Yeah, the fundy religion is obnoxious and yeah, they very well think that the muslim is going to hell. So what else is new?

These are simple people from a poor state who just got their daughter back from a horrendous situation. Can we not separate the nasty religion that they believe in their simple culture from the human feelings of relief in having their child alive?


I am more concerned with the elitist National Organization for Women who have suddenly grasped this girl as a poster child for women in combat.

NOW is an organisation which has ideologues who say that war is a manifestation of Patriarchy and male domination of women and the earth. Yet, they desire women in combat. Do you see any dissonance here?

The National Organisation for Women exhibits the pinnacle of hypocracy by advocating that women be allowed to be in combat. I doubt that a single woman from any of the upper-class families who send their daughters to elite colleges would want them to be in the military, never mind in combat. These are the women who comprise NOW.

It is fine for poor girls from a poor state to be eligible for combat, says the prima donnas of NOW. What a bunch of elitist swinettes to be taking advantage of this girl for the promotion of their ideologies.

Sauron

Where did you read that? So far, I haven't seen any reports about her family religion.


1. How did you determine that NOW was elitist?

2. What is wrong is using this young woman as an example of how women can perform in combat?


Not really. In the first place, I'm not convinced that you're accurately representing NOW's positions.

And in the 2nd place, it's far more likely that NOW's position is:
1. war is a manifestation of patriarchy, and male domination of society;
2. as long as war exists, for whatever reason, women should be allowed to serve

If you have a problem with #1 or #2, state it.
Otherwise, your claim of "dissonance" is unfounded.

So far you've demonstrated your misogyny, but not hypocrisy.

They are? Prove it. Use both sides of the paper if necessary.

sullster

NOW as elitist.

NOW has always been led by a cadre of women from an exclusive group of elite colleges who have tried to impose a rigid ideology on society.

What is wrong with using this girl as a poster child?

It is utterly inappropriate for an axe-grinding political group such as NOW, to exagerate the unfounded story of this girl's combat to promote their agenda. Leave her alone!!!!!!!


Finally, take your claim of me being misogynist and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. That is the typical ideological rant of radical feminists. It is no different than being called names by fundies. I supported women's rights 30 years ago when you were a spark in your father's pants and will not take this pissant charge of msogyny, lying down.

What passe for women's rights now is a bunch of irrational special interest groups which live in an ideological dream land.

Misogyny my ass!!!!!!!!!q

Grad Student Humanist

Yeah. It's so much better to have a cadre of rich white males from exclusive colleges leading a herd of ignorant fundamentalists-- who believe in the God given right to subjugate women-- trying to impose their rigid ideology on society.

I love all of this bellyaching by people against NOW, the NAACP, gay rights groups, affirmative action, etc. It's the death rattle of the old "moral" order; one which will soon be condmened to the ash-heap of history. :boohoo:

ybnormal

Would be so kind as to link us to this NOW exageration of an unfounded story RE Lynch... I've checked the NOW site and did a quick news search and don't see it.

RE your point, are you not dismissing the obvious... that NOW is behind an agenda that allowed Lynch to do exactly what she wanted to do? You know... equality for everyone and all that ideological American trivia.