your point is well taken. (honest). I regret the misunderstanding.

[The following sentence is snarky and probably counterproductive (alas, I can’t help myself), and should not detract from the sincerity of the previous sentence.]

The next time I get caught up in the moment and use overblown language (which I admit I did!) I’ll make sure it is toward something acceptable, like implying that American soldiers are constitutionally wimpy compared to the average British citizen (like, for example, posts 1, 2, and 5 of this thread), when they should instead be described as, at worst, unnecessarily cautious.

let’s not put ourselves in a situation where whe have to kick British civillian asses

as quite unbelievably idiotic and offensive, not to mention juvenile and naive, despite your lengthy after the fact blathering.

The tone of your original comment was exactly ‘boastful macho assumptions’.

If it hadn’t been you wouldn’t have written ‘kick British civilian asses’ you’d have written something like ‘cause unnecessary conflict at a time of stress’ or something equally neutral.

You can provide all the rationalization you like after the fact but you came across like an arse.

Please calm down. Let me try to address your objections:

1)I did not assume “of irrational stupidity on the part of the British public.” Rather, I assume that there exist in London, as in any society, a handful of yahoos who would succumb to the passions surrounding the 7/7 attacks and attack US service members for starting the Iraq war, or whatever reason might motivate them. What evidence do I have that such yahoos may exist? As I alluded to in my post, there are some people stupid enough to vandalise mosques in response to the attacks. These same people could exhibit the “irrational stupidity” I’m talking about.

2)I did not assume that staying out of fights was “a sign of incredible altruism on the part of the US military.” Rather, I think that staying out of likely fights is a pragmatic way of behaving in a host country.

3)I do not assume that U.S. service members could kick the asses of any civilian stupid enough to start a fight over the 7/7 attacks out of some “absurdly boastful macho assumptions about the abilities of the US service personnel” or out of “quasi-racist” feelings. Rather, I was assuming that the average person with military training is probably a better fighter than the average civilian. I admit this is not true in cases where the civilians outnumber the servicemembers, such as when U.S. service members have started fights in Japanese bars and gotten beat down by the men in the bar. In any case, I would make the same assumption about British soldiers fighting with American civilans: my money would be on the soldiers. Is this assumption of mine “brethtakingly idiotic and offensive?” I don’t see why it should be.

4)I would like to clarify that when I wrote “The preceding message is provided completely free of evidence,” I was referring to my own post, by way of acknowledging that I was engaging in unsupported speculation. I won’t go so far as to say that engels’ response, calling me “stupid, quasi-racist and offensive” is “brethtakingly idiotic,” but I would point out that he or she seems to have misunderstood me. Next time I’ll say “this post is provided…” to avoid confusion.

let’s not put ourselves in a situation where whe have to kick British civillian asses (“a-ro”)

has to win some kind of prize for being one of the most breathtakingly idiotic and offensive things I have seen from any of the trolls on this blog in the few days since a large scale terrorist attack on the United States’ foremost ally in the “War on Terror”.

“Viewed this way, the ban isn’t so much a case of “we’re scared of the scary terrorists” as it is “let’s not put ourselves in a situation where whe have to kick British civillian asses.””

I’m almost afraid to dignify this with a response. I’m stunned you choose to interpret the ban as:
a) a rational response to the possibility of irrational stupidity on the part of the British public, b) a sign of incredible altruism on the part of the US military and c) further compounded it by adding some absurdly boastful macho assumptions about the abilities of the US service personnel and their families to i) actually kick British civilian ass and ii) be allowed to do so by law enforcement.

Leaving aside the remote possibility of either i) or ii), you’ve managed to push so many offensive buttons and exhibit an irrational, almost to the point of insanity, tendency to aggrandize your own country. In one comment that’s almost a record.

“Viewed this way, the ban isn’t so much a case of “we’re scared of the scary terrorists” as it is “let’s not put ourselves in a situation where whe have to kick British civillian asses.””

I’m almost afraid to dignify this with a response. I’m stunned you choose to interpret the ban as:
a) a rational response to the possibility of irrational stupidity on the part of the British public, b) a sign of incredible altruism on the part of the US military and c) further compounded it by adding some absurdly boastful macho assumptions about the abilities of the US service personnel and their families to i) actually kick British civilian ass and ii) be allowed to do so by law enforcement.

Leaving aside the remote possibility of either i) or ii), you’ve managed to push so many offensive buttons and exhibit an irrational, almost to the point of insanity, tendency to aggrandize your own country. In one comment that’s almost a record.

As is yours, “a-ro”, which is also stupid, quasi-racist and offensive.

The preceding message is provided completely free of evidence.

No doubt out of embarrassment. Remember, the Commander-in-Chief of these service personnel briefly banned from inside the M25 is still saying “we’re fighting them abroad so that we don’t have fight them at home.” This strategy wasn’t supposed to convert inside the M25 into a danger zone.