Muslims are Pathetic Fighters

of courage and will is different than ours. We consider what they do to be cowardice. They consider it winning. The win in the propaganda arena as well as the sympathy arena. AS you mentioned earlier, WWII saw the deaths of millions of people not wearing uniforms or necessarily fighting for a cause. Vietnam was "won" this way. Somalia proved that we are too soft and sentimental. The "ragheads" are just using tactics they know will work.

I agree- it is working because we are weak.

However, they are not valiant, honorable, or warriors, and their success is predicated to a large degree on the MSM sapping our will by convincing us otherwise.

If we saw them as they are it would be harder to convince us we are losing a war.

Have you read any good background articles on Ethiopia? I've been trying to get a grip on recent events in that area and would sure appreciate some good recommendations of articles, books, etcs.

Is Ethiopia also Islamic? Why are they attacking Somalia? etc.

Thanks, Good article again.

Checked out Wikipedia in an attempt to answer my own question (above). Evidently Ethiopia claims to be the second-oldest official Christian nation in the world, after Armenia. It is about 61% Christian. The CIA World Factbook does not give it that high of percentages of Christians and lists Muslim populations of up to 40%. The BBC Country Profile of Ethiopia indicates that Meles Zenawi, the head of state, was once a Marxist-Leninist, but by the 1990s he had become a champion of the free market and parliamentary democracy. My reading and interpreting of the facts suggests that there is relative freedom in the country - though not without problems or complaints. At least nominally they are a U.S. ally. Please correct any of this if you know better.

You have surpassed me. The only thing I read that was a little different is that we seem to be more than a nominal ally, but I take everything I read in the media with a grain of salt, so your info may be correct.

...but I believe important.

I don't think "it is working because we are weak[,]" but that we are politically unwilling.

"Weak" and "unwilllable" are being thrown out undisputed which I, personally, find ridiculous.

Sorry, but I disagree with you.

"Unwilling" to do something means we do not have a good enough reason to it. In this case, we do not have the determination or belief in our "specialness" which is required to confront a fanatical enemy, and therefore we are "weak".

It may be semantics, but I think your attempt at differentiating between these two terms in this case is wrong.