[Amnell]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

And you think I think that why? Kenpo is about the same as most clubs these days. And Krav Maga is different. That is for military. They usually have pretty shameful goals these days, and Israeli military, where it came from, are some of the worst for this. Either way, that style is not built for Warriors, it is built for Soldiers...

I read between the lines. Given your stance on certain techniques, you would frown on many of the basic principles of those two styles. That's why I think that.

Kenpo teaches you to take advantage of whatever opening is given to you. Yes, if I were in a knife fight and my opponent was stupid enough to expose his back, I would stab him. In fact, I would probably be the cause of his turning his back. My instructor taught from a defensive stand-point. His philosophy was this: put yourself in a position to cause a lot of damage without taking any, if possible. We did a lot of techniques that taught us how to get from a person's inside to his outside where he would be unable to strike back.

You say Krav maga was developed for the military... okay... well, wasn't Kenjutsu? Do you even know what Bushido means? Yeah, yeah, "Way of the warrior" blah blah. Bu, the first character, means "Military". The second symbol means "a learned man". And of course, do means "way". So, all those arts that came out of the Japanese mainland and were used by the Bushi were all developed for military purposes. Gee, I wonder if that's why they're all called "MARTIAL arts", seeing as "bu" and "martial" mean the same thing.

Krav maga teaches people to fight against multiple opponents in a worst case scenario. Hence, its techniques involve the quick immobilization of each opponent with minimal recieved damage so that the Warrior may disable as many opponents as possible before he is himself disabled.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I am really lacking as to what your concept of honorable is based on. You seem to believe that some people are lower than you, so you should fight them in a disrespectful manner because of this or something. Very rude idea, if you ask me... I would never touch the groin or the eyes, or an unprotected back. You should learn to respect even those you fight. Esp. being American, if you hate everyone you are up against, you will be so full of hate that it will ultimately cloud your vision of reality.

When it comes to a fight to the death (on the individual level), respect for the opponent only gets in the way. In my eyes, honourable combat is a fair fight. Honourable victory is winning by the complete overwhelming of the enemy. This is on the individual level.

And plus: what's more disrespectful? Me kicking the guy in the groin, or him pulling a gun on me out of no where for no apparent reason? If someone chooses to threaten my life, in my eyes, he has forfeited his own life. By trying to impose upon my rights as an individual, he has lowered himself to least common denominator and therefore deserves no respect.

A formal comatant would not be thought of like this. An arranged fight would be much different. I would not strike to the groin then, unless it was previously agreed to be allowed or my opponent made it clear that he would fight by those rules, anyway.

And don't start with your immature anti-american bullshit. We had that discussion already.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Well they sound like powerful and effective techniques... Like I said, a Soldier is doing a job, and most of them are blind anyway. If you are all worried about self defence and your life is so important to you, fine, do whatever you can to stay alive. The concept of the Warrior I think you are missing is that survival is not the only part to life. Some things are more important. As far as I am concerned, a coward is someone who does not recognize this.

Yes, a soldier is doing a job. Just like the Bushi were doing one thousand years ago.

Has it occured to you that maybe Bushido isn't the ONLY way of the warrior? The Samurai fought to win or die trying. A soldier today fights to complete the mission as effectively as possible, and is ready to die trying (though they don't plan on it). What's the difference? Is the soldier who storms a multi-story building any less of a warrior than the samurai who sieged a castle?

A coward is someone who gives in to his fear of dying and runs away. A warrior is anyone who knows he could die yet proceeds anyway. You don't have to idolize death to be immune to the fear of it, and saying otherwise is narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Fighting is like a vaccine. You take vaccinations that are made of the disease you try and cure, and eventually become immune to it.

True enough. But, you don't HAVE to take a vaccine in order to not get sick. Simply avoiding situations where you could become infected is enough, really. You can also take all kinds of supplements to boost your immune system. Taking the vaccine isn't an absolute must. It's just the best way. Example: I mentioned my USMC friend who told me about the usage of a knife in a fight. I may not have learned the lesson of willpower and weapons from experience, but I still learned the lesson.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

What I meant is someone can only learn a few techniques to protect themselves by doing it part time. Use the vaccination idea again. Ever done Hep B vacs? You gotta get 3 shots, right? Well, part time is like the first shot, but useless without the other two, just gives you a taste, but you achieve nothing. You really need to learn to stop useing the word Warrior. It is fine if you say soldier or samaratin or whatever, but leave the idea of Warrior for someone occupied with something, okay. Or I suppose someone who has shot a Bow before once is a qualified archer to you, right"? LOL

But unlike vaccinations, knowing two or three techniques might be enough. Besides, if a part-time student were attacked and he REALLY had the will to survive, it wouldn't matter how many techniques he'd learned.

A part time student has considerably more experience than a person who's shot a bow one time. Even part time is better than no time.

And I will say warrior where I deem it necessary.

Btw, people don't have so much respect for the American military because we're a bunch of pansies. It's because our soldiers are warriors. The Marine Corps, especially, spends a lot of time drilling warrior edicts into the heads of its recriuts. They may not stem from Bushido, but that doesn't matter. We're Americans, not Japanese.

Oh, yeah... There's a semantic difference between "murder" and "kill". I suggest you check a very good dictionary before you try saying that they are the same thing.