First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

Scott writes:

Good one.

I don't consider a loss of civil liberties due to cowardice to be good.

How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
wrong) around the world?

I don't know. How is that relevant?

I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as being a coward, U.S.
or otherwise.

I was talking about the civilian population.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

OK I'll bite. I will answer each of your questions below (where you
wrote your questions)

Mxsmanic wrote:

Scott writes:


Good one.


I don't consider a loss of civil liberties due to cowardice to be good.

This one I can't answer. How are any loss of liberties atrributable to
cowardice of the USAF as you claim? Maybe you mean the loss of
liberties because of terrorist attacks and the knee jerk reactions that
ensue to "protect lives"? With that, I would agree that it is not good
to exchange liberties for security. But, that's just how I feel.


How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
wrong) around the world?


I don't know. How is that relevant?

Cowards would not be in armed conflicts, therefore if the French are not
in armed conflicts, they themselves could be called cowards. Air Force
folks are in armed conflicts, so how would you consider them cowards?


I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as being a coward, U.S.
or otherwise.


I was talking about the civilian population.

So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
their site? They are military, not civilian. Now it sounds like you
are squirming to change your argument.

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.

Cowards would not be in armed conflicts ...

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

... 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?

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.

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.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott writes:
snip

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.

Perhaps they just want to be selective as to whom they allow access.
If you came to my front door and demanded entry would you call me a
coward if I deny you entry?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
blocked? What does it say?

Scott


Dan wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Scott writes:

snip


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.

I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
in the 1940s to "help" them out. Now they're returning the favor...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/101103.shtml

Scott



Scott wrote:
What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
blocked? What does it say?

Scott


Dan wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Scott writes:


snip


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.

Scott writes:

I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
in the 1940s to "help" them out.

Are Americans still upset about the French paying for their independence?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Scott wrote:
I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
in the 1940s to "help" them out. Now they're returning the favor...


There's a difference in the minds of the French. On very rare
occasions there has been vandalism to U.S. cemeteries in France. The
French of all generations react with extreme negativity and the
perpetrators are in for a rough time. The French make a distinction
between those who liberated them and those in power now.

The French know far more about U.S. assistance during and after WW1
and WW2 than Americans know about how big a role the French played
during the American Revolution.

I have no great love for France of today, but they did save our butts
in the 1700s. In case you are wondering why I make such a distinction
myself I will give you one example. During WW2 the French ran a
concentration camp for the Nazis. It was called Drancy. There is no
monument to those who suffered there, just an apartment complex. France,
as a nation, chose not to face their complicity in the crimes of the Nazis.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Scott writes:

What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
blocked? What does it say?

The browser can't reach the site. I can ping some of the sites, but they
don't answer a browser.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.