Hero or loser?

[joea]

I wonder is the difference between this guy:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/26/kruedener.html

and these guys


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/22/afghanistan-deaths060422.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/27/bodies-return.html

That the latter were killed by nasty "Islamofascist (TM) " action while the first was killed by noble Isreali defensive fire? Is the first a loser and the others heros? Same army same country...different missions? Well?

[SUBMAN1]

Hero is a misnomer. The term hero involves someone risking their own life to save others without benefit to ones self. Today we get news media regarding sports figures as heros, which is something they are not, since they are not risking life/limb, and they are doing their thing for the money.

So the question is, what do you mean by hero?

-S

[August]

Of course he isn't. I don't think anyone in their right mind would blame soldiers for the follies of the idiots who put them in harms way.

[scandium]

Of course he isn't. I don't think anyone in their right mind would blame soldiers for the follies of the idiots who put them in harms way.
I have to ask, when you say the "follies of the idiots who put them in harms way", which idiots are you referring to? Are you referring, in the case of those killed in Afghanistan, to the idiots in the White House and Pentagon who planned this campaign so poorly that, not only did we never find Bin Laden, but 4 years later we've made little more progress than before we went in there?

Or are you referring to the idiots running the Israeli parliment who decided to respond to the capture of two of their soldiers by immediately bombing neighbouring Lebanon to rubble without regard to the 100,000+ foreign nationals their actions trapped there, the UN Observers stationed there, or the 800,000 plus Lebanese who are now refugees?

Or are you just taking a swipe at the U.N., which had about as much warning of what Israel had in store for the country as you or I had? By the way, your country is Israel's closest ally and a permanent member of the U.N., so if its the U.N. you're blaming then did your Ambassador to the U.N. or Secretary of State call an emergency meeting of the UNSC to put forward a resolution to terminate UNIFEL's Mandate and thereby bring these guys out of harm's way? No, but what they did do, and continue to do, is block every effort at a ceasefire that would have spared these guys and who knows how many others.

Not that our own PM has been any better on this, by the way, just to let you know that there is plenty of blame to go around and our PM is not exempt from it in my books either.

[joea]

You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".

[August]

You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".

Hmm, well since you're not talking about Scandium you must mean Subman and myself being as how we're the only two who've taken the time to reply to this thread. Well you may not believe it but I do support the troops Joe. If it were up to me not one US (or Canadian or British) soldier would ever be forced to don a blue helmet ever again.

But seeing as how you seem to be looking for a fight, answer me this. Scenes like the picture below have existed long before this latest ME conflagration. Why did your government allow it to continue? Why did your government allow/force it's soldiers into this situation? It looks to me like the UN and Hezbollah share a bunker. Is this a wrong assumption? Then why do their flags fly side by side?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

All i know is what i read and hear on the news:


Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram

Is MacKenzie a liar?

[SUBMAN1]

You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
Hmm, well since you're not talking about Scandium you must mean Subman and myself being as how we're the only two who've taken the time to reply to this thread. Well you may not believe it but I do support the troops Joe. If it were up to me not one US (or Canadian or British) soldier would ever be forced to don a blue helmet ever again.

But seeing as how you seem to be looking for a fight, answer me this. Scenes like the picture below have existed long before this latest ME conflagration. Why did your government allow it to continue? Why did your government allow/force it's soldiers into this situation? It looks to me like the UN and Hezbollah share a bunker. Is this a wrong assumption? Then why do their flags fly side by side?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

All i know is what i read and hear on the news:


Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
Is MacKenzie a liar?

Well said

[scandium]

You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
Hmm, well since you're not talking about Scandium you must mean Subman and myself being as how we're the only two who've taken the time to reply to this thread. Well you may not believe it but I do support the troops Joe. If it were up to me not one US (or Canadian or British) soldier would ever be forced to don a blue helmet ever again.

But seeing as how you seem to be looking for a fight, answer me this. Scenes like the picture below have existed long before this latest ME conflagration. Why did your government allow it to continue? Why did your government allow/force it's soldiers into this situation? It looks to me like the UN and Hezbollah share a bunker. Is this a wrong assumption? Then why do their flags fly side by side?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

All i know is what i read and hear on the news:


Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
Is MacKenzie a liar?

Strawman. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, and preface it by saying that I have no reason to call the General's honesty or integrity into question BUT:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore even taking what he says at face value, in no way does it exonerate the IDF or serve as an idictment of the U.N. (which, recall, was personally assured by the Israeli PM that UN sites would not be attacked).

[SUBMAN1]

You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
Hmm, well since you're not talking about Scandium you must mean Subman and myself being as how we're the only two who've taken the time to reply to this thread. Well you may not believe it but I do support the troops Joe. If it were up to me not one US (or Canadian or British) soldier would ever be forced to don a blue helmet ever again.

But seeing as how you seem to be looking for a fight, answer me this. Scenes like the picture below have existed long before this latest ME conflagration. Why did your government allow it to continue? Why did your government allow/force it's soldiers into this situation? It looks to me like the UN and Hezbollah share a bunker. Is this a wrong assumption? Then why do their flags fly side by side?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/UN/un_hizz_flag.jpg

All i know is what i read and hear on the news:


Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006

"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
Is MacKenzie a liar?
Strawman. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, and preface it by saying that I have no reason to call the General's honesty or integrity into question BUT:

1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.

2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.

3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.

Therefore even taking what he says at face value, in no way does it exonerate the IDF or serve as an idictment of the U.N. (which, recall, was personally assured by the Israeli PM that UN sites would not be attacked).

If the UN is calling out Israeli positions and transmitting them non-encoded, as is possible, they just became an enemy to both the IDF and Hezbollah. I expect some more details on this one in the following months. I do have a major problem with Hezbollah working along side the UN though. That is just not right, and they are probably asking to be bombed if that is the case.

I have a curiosity however - Is Strawman your nickname for August? I keep seeing you post that and I am not sure what it is meant by it. Without assuming, I am sure you can enlighten us?

-S

[August]

I have a curiosity however - Is Strawman your nickname for August? I keep seeing you post that and I am not sure what it is meant by it. Without assuming, I am sure you can enlighten us?

-S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Straw man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strawman&redirect=no))
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#searchInput)
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28disambiguation%29). A straw man argument is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the use of straw men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28literal%29) in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it(see [1] (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=straw+man&searchmode=none)). It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy [2] (http://www.csuchico.edu/phil/sdobra_mat/fallacies.html) or a scarecrow argument.


Scandium is wrong though. I just asked a few questions. I did not "create a postion that is easy to refute". He's just trying to side step those questions about the UN and Hez defacto sharing bases.