That's how I took it.

You claim the USAF shows cowardice. You claim loss of liberties is
attributable to cowardice. Therefore the loss of liberties is
attributable to the USAF.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Scott writes:


This one I can't answer. How are any loss of liberties atrributable to
cowardice of the USAF as you claim?


That's not what I claimed. The loss of civil liberties is attributable to
cowardice in the population in general.


Maybe you mean the loss of
liberties because of terrorist attacks and the knee jerk reactions that
ensue to "protect lives"?


In part, yes.


With that, I would agree that it is not good
to exchange liberties for security. But, that's just how I feel.


That's how the founders of the country felt, too, as well as a couple of
million people who fought to protect those liberties.

Yes, they FOUGHT, so they weren't cowards.


Cowards would not be in armed conflicts ...


Wise men wouldn't be in armed conflicts, either.

Maybe true, but if an enemy is dumb (un WISE) and comes fighting, can
you supply an example of an alternative to fighting?


... therefore if the French are not
in armed conflicts, they themselves could be called cowards.


So anyone who isn't violent and fighting is a coward?

No, not necessarily. I was just saying that cowards won't fight. Smart
people MIGHT fight if cornered.


Air Force
folks are in armed conflicts, so how would you consider them cowards?


They don't let people visit their Web sites. They must be afraid of
something.

No, it appears they won't let ONE person (you imply many with the word
people -- which is plural for person) see their site. Show me an
example of someone else who can't view their site.


So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
their site?


Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.
Again, it appears they only have one address blocked and it happens to be yours. Cite references to others who share your problem.