Russian: Yet another victim of terrorism

[takeanumber]

<Sarcasm>

I love the comparisons between a terrorist who gets killed by an Israeli rocket, and a Russian kid who is gunned in the back by an Arab terrorist.

bravo.

clap.clap.clap

They're totally analogous.

</Sarcasm>

[Guest eureka]

Not to divert the discussion from the horror of this incident, but, TN, I think I may be misreading your sarcasm.

My point is who decides that the "terrorist" killed by an Israeli rocket is a terrorist and when did he become a terrorist? When did the commanders behind the firing of the rocket cease to be terrorists and become victims of terror?

60% of all terror incidents happen in India. Why do we not hear of them? Why is our outrage confined to supposed attacks on the West?

What and who are terrorists and what is the reason for numbers of people everywhere to turn to terror. Are most of them really terrorists? Are they resisting foreign occupation or oppression?

Just a few questions.

[takeanumber]

Killing somebody who organizes terrorist attacks (I don't care if the terrorist is in a wheel chair, a midget, gimp or mentally handicapped, if you're a terrorist, you deserve what you get) is a terrorist, and is fair game.

Killing a child with a gunshot to the back is not justifiable.

It's not justified because your kid got hit by a russian mortar.

It's not justified because your homeland isn't independant.

It's not justified because your god thinks it's justified.

It's not justified because you want to get into heaven.

It's not justified because you try to justify it.

It's not justified.

So don't try to rationalize it.

When you do, you demean everybody in the West.

Worse, you sound like a French socialist circa 1933, and we all know what happened when they started to compromise.

So, stop trying to rationalize and sympathize thinking that it'll make you sleep better at night or because you got an axe to grind with Putin or Bush.

[Guest eureka]

I expect better from you. Those are valid questions and, unless they are asked and answered, terrorism will continue ti grow.

[I miss Reagan]

While it is tragic that so many were killed, especially children, in this instance, it was inevitable given the circumstance. Russia has a much different view of the value of human life, and they probably would have stormed or gassed the building and accepted the large level of casualties anyway.

This is a very ignorant comment indeed from someone who knows little of Russians or their culture. I was in Moscow when the radical muslims took over the theatre. I was supposed to go to the play but fortunately my Russian friends decided not to take me at the last minute. If only you knew how horrified the Russian people are over the loss of their fellow Russians.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I Miss Reagan,

This is a very ignorant comment indeed from someone who knows little of Russians or their culture

Yes, i suppose you are right, it is just the Russian leadership, not the people, who have a 'different outlook'.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

You did indeed post some very valid questions. While the Tribal Pashtun or 'mujahideen' were firing random mortar shells in Kabul against the Soviets, they were known in the west as 'freedom fighters'. Now that they are fighting (perceived) US-led occupation, the same action is called 'terrorism'. Yet the goals of the Afghanis haven't changed. They are still tribal, muslim, and xenophobic. This is why they view any outsider taking up residence, or trying to change their 'political system',as the enemy.

As August1991 states:

Don't, for two seconds, stop and say "We bombed Dresden but then they bombed Coventry."

. But he forgets a few important facts about these events. As for 'moral relativism', the Dresden and Hamburg bombings were acts of terrorism, by definition. The UK (especially Arthur 'Bomber' Harris) believed that terrorism was a justifiable tactic against the 'enemy', some 80,000 civilians (per city).

As for coventry, Winston Churchill decided not to evacuate the city even though he knew the attack was coming, so as not to alert the Germans that 'Enigma' had been broken. He sacrificed his own people, albeit 'for a greater good'.

I wonder if '9/11' was allowed to happen like this. There is evidence to support this. In the book "Imperial Hubris", the author has made call for treason charges related to 'leaked information' regarding just how far communications amongst al-Qaeda had been compromised. One senior US official bragged to the press "We know Bin Laden called his mother right after the attacks".

So, just how much impetus for war-making in Iraq would there have been if the US had simply arrested 19 men with box-cutters at the airport and prevented the attacks? Further, the US is now bragging that they are 'very close to capturing Bin-Laden". It has been charged that the US already has Bin Laden, and is waiting to bring him forth just before the US elections, the 'ace-in -the-hole' for Bush's campaign. Would it be 'morally acceptable' for Bush to use such a tactic? Or just 'Morally relative" and thereby tactically genius?

Conspiracy theories aside, we are fighting this battle on the wrong plane[sic]. Even the Islamists believe

But our values are worth defending.

[August1991]

Thelonious, you have written utter nonsense.

While the Tribal Pashtun or 'mujahideen' were firing random mortar shells in Kabul against the Soviets, they were known in the west as 'freedom fighters'. Now that they are fighting (perceived) US-led occupation, the same action is called 'terrorism'.

It's not as simple as you state but even so, do you not see a distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union? Or do you see them both as agressor, imperial states? [i see a large difference between the US and the Soviet Union.]

As for 'moral relativism', the Dresden and Hamburg bombings were acts of terrorism, by definition.

But the causes were utterly different. Churchill, a good man defending goodness, was fighting against the evil of an evil man. I use strong words because I know no other to describe this fascist regime. There was no moral relativism - no attempt to understand the other point of view except with a view to defeating it.

I wonder if '9/11' was allowed to happen like this. There is evidence to support this. In the book "Imperial Hubris", the author has made call for treason charges related to 'leaked information' regarding just how far communications amongst al-Qaeda had been compromised. 

Are you suggesting that Bush sacrificed 3000 citizens so that al-Qaeda would not discover that US intelligence had a mole? That's silly.

More likely, thelonius, you simply believe that Bush organized this for some convoluted reason.

The Left claims to stand for human rights but is quick to criticize anyone who takes concrete measures to protect them. The Left similarly claims to stand for freedom of thought but is intolerant of anyone who disagrees.

The United States, ultimately, is a country that allows ordinary people to find their own way. The country was founded, for God's sakes, on that principle. Why can't the Left admit this obvious fact?

So, just how much impetus for war-making in Iraq would there have been if the US had simply arrested 19 men with box-cutters at the airport and prevented the attacks?

Are you blind, ignorant or just thick?

Like children, we don't know what our parents have done.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

but even so, do you not see a distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union? Or do you see them both as agressor, imperial states?

The question is not what I believe, it is what Osama, and now a growing number of Muslims, believe.

Are you suggesting that Bush sacrificed 3000 citizens so that al-Qaeda would not discover that US intelligence had a mole? That's silly.

I did not use the term, nor imply, 'mole'. I was talking about the fact that the US had 'de facto', 'bugged Osama's phone' (to analogize simply).

Churchill, a good man defending goodness, was fighting against the evil of an evil man

If you substitute Churchill's name with Mr. Bush, does this render you argument 'silly'?

The United States, ultimately, is a country that allows ordinary people to find their own way. The country was founded, for God's sakes, on that principle. Why can't the Left admit this obvious fact?

I whole-heartedly agree with this fact. It is Bin Laden and the Islamists who argue that they are not given the same lattitude to decide their own future. It is the export of democracy they have a problem with. Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic unless the people of those countries themselves want it and fight for it.

The Left claims to stand for human rights but is quick to criticize anyone who takes concrete measures to protect them.

The actions of the US (foriegn policy-wise) are often directly opposite of human rights standards. It is this hypocrisy that the US must admit before it can hope to keep things going the way they are. They either have to change that policy, or admit that they support tyrannical dictatorships and do so more strongly.

[Guest eureka]

Are you sure that the USA was founded on the orinciple of letting ordinary people find their own way. I rather think it was founded on the principle of ensuring the status of a landowning class. The Constitution wa high on words but low on protection for the people.

If they were to find their own way, it had to be in the dark.

And, where was there a greater terror than that acted out daily against slaves. The Constitution gave no protection to them and, indeed, encouraged their everlasting opression and subjection.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

While slavery was indeed a black mark[sic] against the history of the US, it was the status quo at the time. I do not hold this against the US in particular, however, the most damning thing is that they were the last 'first world nation' to abolish it, and worse, many in the southern US would gladly have it back.

[takeanumber]

Those children, in spite of what anybody says on these boards, did not have it comming.

[Michael Hardner]

Those children, in spite of what anybody says on these boards, did not have it comming.

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself.

[Black Dog]

As with 9-11 and any other act of terrorism, any attempt to explain the motivations of the peerpatrators of this atrocity is immediately dismissed as "justification". It's as though, subconciously, civilized nations recognize that these events simply do not occur in a vacum.

I find it interesting that any historical background or context is absent from this discussion so far. Instead, we have jibber-jabber about "exterminating terrorists" etc etc. The same thinking that, when applied in the past, has led to more terrorism, more innocent deaths.

For context, the Chechyan struggle for independance is more than 200 year sold. The Chechyans have fought for self-detrmination against the Czars, the Communists (Stalin even had the entire population of Chenchnya forcibly transfered out of their homeland in the '40s) and now against ex-KGB man Putin. The Russians have committed untold atrocities in Chanya, as detailed in this report.

According to reports, Russian forces have arbitrarily detained, tortured or killed thousands of civilians. Most people who are detained by Russian forces are picked up during identity checks on civilian convoys travelling from Chechnya to Ingushetia or during military raids (so-called zachistki or "clean-up" raids) on populated areas. These raids are accompanied by widespread abuses against the civilian population. Civilians, including women and children, have reportedly been abducted, subjected to rape and other forms of torture, and killed.

Some military units reportedly black out the number plates or other identifying information on their vehicles during raids.

Detainees have been held in facilities that sometimes amount to little more than pits in the ground. They are denied access to relatives, lawyers and the outside world. Survivors have said that torture is routine and systematic. They have reported the rape of male and female detainees, beatings with hammers and clubs, electro-shock torture and exposure to tear gas.

The Russian authorities have proved very reluctant to provide information on the number of investigations and prosecutions. However, investigations into allegations of extrajudicial execution, “disappearances”, torture and ill-treatment are rare. Those investigations that do take place are usually inadequate and hardly ever result in those responsible being prosecuted.

So, for all the agonizing over the fate of the Russian children, who is paying attention to the crimes of the Russian federation? How can we expect to prevent future Beslans with such selective outrage?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach

Indeed, this is what all must do if there ever is to be a solution. I think Nietzsche said something like 'only by removing one's self from reality can one dispassionately examine one's place in it' (to paraphrase, of course, and Nietzsche thought his 'direction of removal' was above)

[Black Dog]

Our dead and injured children

Ten years ago Chechnya had a population of 2 million. Today it is 800,000, and Vladimir Putin has an army of what we estimate to be up to 300,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya inflicting a regime of terror. Many Chechens are refugees and many others have simply disappeared, often in the night. At least 200,000 Chechen civilians have been killed by Russian soldiers, including 35,000 children. Another 40,000 children have been seriously injured, 32,000 have lost at least one parent and 6,500 have been orphaned. These are figures supported by reports of human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and we believe they are conservative. This is how Putin's soldiers treat Chechen civilians

[August1991]

As with 9-11 and any other act of terrorism, any attempt to explain the motivations of the peerpatrators of this atrocity is immediately dismissed as "justification". It's as though, subconciously, civilized nations recognize that these events simply do not occur in a vacum.

Fair point BD. The Left wants to understand why Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because there must be an explanation and with an explanation, maybe we can cure him. The Right simply wants to stop him in such a way that any new Dahmers, whatever their motivation, will not follow through.

As to your history of Chechnya, the Chuvash Republic is essentially autonomous and sovereign within the Russian Federation. The Chechens were offered such and the radicals refused. Chechnya became an outlaw territory of all kinds of contraband. Now, the issue has become inextricable from a broader, radical Islamic movement.

[Black Dog]

The Left wants to understand why Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because there must be an explanation and with an explanation, maybe we can cure him. The Right simply wants to stop him in such a way that any new Dahmers, whatever their motivation, will not follow through

Apples and oranges (unless you are implying that all Chechyans are homicidal maniacs).

As to your history of Chechnya, the Chuvash Republic is essentially autonomous and sovereign within the Russian Federation. The Chechens were offered such and the radicals refused. Chechnya became an outlaw territory of all kinds of contraband. Now, the issue has become inextricable from a broader, radical Islamic movement.

The rise of Islamic extremism in Chechnya (and the accompanying potential ties with international terrorism) is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, given the brutality of the Russian occupation, an entirely predictable one. Brutality breeds brutality.Conditions such as those imposed by the Russina invasion are ideal for lawlessness, the formeting of radical ideologies and recruitment for extermist causes.

[Black Dog]

Putin's war.

Ever since September 11, countries such as Russia and Israel that face serious challenges from Muslims living under their rule have been trying to rebrand their local struggles as part of the "global war on terrorism". For those that succeed, the rewards can be great: a flood of money and weapons from Washington, plus an end to Western criticism over the methods they use to suppress their Muslim rebels.

...Chechnya is a war-torn landscape patrolled by about 100,000 Russian soldiers, many thousands are dead, and the Chechen resistance is carrying out terrorist attacks in Russians cities.

There may be a few foreign volunteers from other Muslim countries involved in the struggle, but this is not part of some international terrorist conspiracy. It is not even a Russian-Chechen war, really. It is Putin's war, and you can't "decontextualise" that.

[August1991]

Reading through this thread, the only poster who makes any sense is TalkNumb.

It is absurd to blame Putin, Russians or Bush for the murder of those children. Yet many posters to this thread have done basically that. These same posters would no doubt have found ways in 1938 to blame England, France and even Poland for the looming threat of Nazi Germany.

We in the west have worthy values to defend because our values are good ones. The scientific method does not mean that every viewpoint is valid. The scientific method is an intelligent sceptic's way to finding the truth.

I sense that somewhere, somehow, the Left has lost its moral compass.

Yves Montand, a one time member of the French Communist Party, understood this.

[takeanumber]

Thx for the backup August.

I'll target this statement:

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself.

1933.French.Socialist.Crap

Anybody who claims that they discuss the issue of children getting gunned in the back 'dispassionately' is clearly antithetic to Russians, or perhaps, Slavs in general.

In my mind, to come to these boards and to imply that the mass slaughtering of children is alright because the 'Russians did it first', or even more disconcerning, "The only way to solve this problem is by dispassionately negotiating" is precisely that, an appeaser a-la 1933.

Does anybody here really think that Hitler could have been 'talked out of it'?

I mean common people.

On the sidebar, Putin has now adopted Bush's pre-emptive strike policy. I bet the Bush admin is saying 'oh crap', and they should be. (See where it leads!!!!) So we can all take comfort in that we have a huge ally against the Radical Islamist threat.

But at the same time, let's not justify or rationalize the slaughtering of Children.

I don't believe the entire left has lost its moral compass, I just think that some people, just like those on the right, who subscribe to only one form of thinking, they just become so incredibly myopic in their point of view that end employing really illegitimate logic, and start seeing what they want to see.

[Black Dog]

It is absurd to blame Putin, Russians or Bush for the murder of those children. Yet many posters to this thread have done basically that. These same posters would no doubt have found ways in 1938 to blame England, France and even Poland for the looming threat of Nazi Germany.

You know August, that's pretty thick of you. Unless you're a big fan of Perle's (mor eon him later) notion of decontextualizing terrorism, it should be patently obvious that looking at the events that lead up to acts of terror and motivate the perpatrators is not "blaming the victim" or justifying terror.

We in the west have worthy values to defend because our values are good ones.

What are those values? Is the destruction, slaughter and rape of the Chencyan people by the Russians consistent with these values? Or are you simply operating from the principle that western values are superior and moral, therefore all western actions are intrinsically consistent with said values, therefore all western actions are inherently "moral"? So instances where Russian troops have gang-raped Chechyan girls and slit their throats afterwards are okay because "our values are good ones"?

That's moral relativism if I've ever seen it.

Anybody who claims that they discuss the issue of children getting gunned in the back 'dispassionately' is clearly antithetic to Russians, or perhaps, Slavs in general.

That's the same kind of bullshit used by people who say anyone who questions Israel is anti-semetic. It's a red herring designed to throw the focus on the motives of the questioner and draw attention away from questions like "Why has the population ofChechnya declined from 2 million to 800,000 in five years?"

So we can all take comfort in that we have a huge ally against the Radical Islamist threat.

But at the same time, let's not justify or rationalize the slaughtering of Children.

A question: are you an unconcious or concious dupe? Because it's pretty clear the propaganda about Chechnya being another front in the war on terror has made it's mark on you. I guess that's what comes from a complete ignorance of historical context and a total reliance on Headline News.

More moral relativism. And it's the "left" that's lost it's moral compass? I find that hard to believe, given how very selective some are in choosing which dead children are suitable to mourn.

Even though educating people about Chechnya seems to be a Sisyphsian task, I'll keep trying.

USians working for Chechyan independence

...in the US, the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled "distinguished Americans" who are its members is a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically support the "war on terror".

They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be "a cakewalk"; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush's plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.

The ACPC heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable "Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo - implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there. In August, the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration.

The bungling Kremlin

After a disgraceful outing during the hostage crisis, during which the media gave mostly unquestioning coverage to the Kremlin line, a few newspapers have begun to speak up. This week, Izvestia, whose editor was fired for the paper's graphic Beslan coverage on the weekend, published a blistering indictment of the government's handling of the crisis. Challenging the government version, it said the gunfight at the school broke out after shots were fired by local vigilantes -- not, as the government claims, after an explosion. More tellingly, Izvestia cast doubt on the government's claim that foreign fighters were involved, noting that the Kremlin has failed to produce the bodies of the 10 Arabs and one black man it alleged were involved. If foreign fighters were not involved, it would undermine Moscow's claim that the attack was part of the global war on terror and that other countries should stand shoulder to shoulder with Russia in that war.

[idealisttotheend]

I once saw an argument that the first person who brings up Hitler and the Nazis in an argument automatically loses the argument. I don't think it is true in all cases but I wonder about this one. What is the actual correlation between a nation of Germans under a charismatic leader with a large conventional army, and a highly fragmented fundamentalist terrorist movement? What is the price for us not understanding the difference, especially in trying to repsond militarily by attacking nations instead of cells and politically blaming an entire religion?

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself.

Not only can you approach terrorism dispassionately, our political leaders must do so. What is the passionate result that you want TN? The passionate result of people who see children attacked on TV is to attack people who look like the attackers. The attacked will thus respond passionately to the counter attack and on and on you go.

Furthermore as someone who quotes from economic textbooks, are you now saying that reason is insufficient to deal with a problem like terrorism, that there is no pragmatic approach but only an ideological one?

In my mind, to come to these boards and to imply that the mass slaughtering of children is alright because the 'Russians did it first', or even more disconcerning,

Please quote the post where this occured and someone claimed the act was "alright."

"The only way to solve this problem is by dispassionately negotiating" is precisely that, an appeaser a-la 1933.

The dispassionate response to Hitler would be to deal with him earlier and appeasment was a passionate desire to avoid another world war.

We in the west have worthy values to defend because our values are good ones.

Then we ought to defend those good values. We ought not defend ourselves or our actions in the name of those values. America's actions from Guatemala in 54 to Pinnochet to the Shah of Iran have been taken in the name of freedom and democracy but are clearly not consistent with the actual values of freedom and democracy. Europe recently got out of the colonizing buisness and we all know the white man's burden was really taking "our" "values" to the "uncivilized" because those values were better even though colonization itself is an example of a weak value system.

If you defend the "west" and all it's actions instead of only the actions consistent with the values you feel are good, you cease to talk in terms of values and instead talk in terms of slogans. "They" say "allah akbuar -- blessed are the martyrs," "we" say "defend freedom and democracy" and the blood begins to flow as there cannot be any common ground. The wise on both sides move out of large cities and away from military installations and power plants.

If you defend only the actions consistent with those good values, you find actions on both sides that you can defend and actions on both sides that you cannot.

There have been media reports (I think I saw one on BBC though I can't find it at the moment) that some of the terrorists themselves didn't know that they would be killing children and objected vigorously when they found out. There was therefore discord even among the thirty people who went to kill people to make their political point.

That is why it must be obvious that as soon as you define these things in terms of the "west" versus the "Arabs" or "Muslims" you have already lost the only battle that counts and forgotten the one value most worth defending... that people cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people simply because those other people are of the same race or religion.

In any case can we agree that killing chilren is always wrong? if we can than we must point our that no one has refuted BDs assertion that the Russians have killed children in Chechnya, the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Israelies in the occupied territories.

It is hard, therefore, to argue that the West is on the side of the angels or not to see what a 'passionate' response to the killing of children breeds.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There was a good column by Naomi Klein in today's Globe and Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...9/TPColumnists/

Excerpts:

The Likudization of the world

9/11's real legacy is that Bush has adopted Sharon's rigid views, says NAOMI KLEIN

By NAOMI KLEIN

Thursday, September 9, 2004 - Page A25 

...

... Let me be absolutely clear: By Likudization, I do not mean that key members of the Bush administration are working for the interests of Israel at the expense of U.S. interests (the increasingly popular "dual loyalty" argument). What I mean is that, on Sept. 11, George W. Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his new role as "war president." He found that philosophy in the Likud doctrine, conveniently handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks already ensconced in the White House. No thinking required.

Since then, the Bush White House has applied this logic with chilling consistency to its global "war on terror." ... In this narrative, the U.S. is fighting a never-ending battle for its survival against irrational forces that seek nothing less than its total extermination.

And now the Likudization narrative has spread to Russia. ...

There has, indeed, been a dramatic and dangerous rise in religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world. The problem is that, under the Likud doctrine, there is no space to ask why this is happening. We are not allowed to point out that fundamentalism breeds in failed states, where warfare has systematically targeted civilian infrastructure, allowing the mosques to start taking responsibility for everything from education to garbage collection. It has happened in Gaza, in Grozny, in Sadr City.

Mr. Sharon says terrorism is an epidemic that "has no borders, no fences," but this is not the case. Terrorism thrives within the illegitimate borders of occupation and dictatorship; it festers behind "security walls" put up by imperial powers; it crosses those borders and climbs over those fences to explode inside the countries responsible for, or complicit in, occupation and domination. ...

If we want to see the future of where the Likud doctrine leads, we need only follow the guru home, to Israel -- a country paralyzed by fear, embracing pariah policies, and in furious denial about the brutality it commits daily. It is a nation surrounded by enemies and desperate for friends, a category it narrowly defines as those who ask no questions, while generously offering the same moral amnesty in return.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear idealisttotheend,

Then we ought to defend those good values. We ought not defend ourselves or our actions in the name of those values

Well said. Today I was listening to the song "The Ballad of the Green Berets" and in it there is the line 'Men who mean just what they say...'. I am not exactly sure when this ceased to be a value, I only know it has.