Disagreement re: cowardice

Post #8,516 by jb4 9/12/01 8:52:27 AM Reply	Disagreement re: cowardice I wish people would stop saying this was "cowardly". These assholes died too; it just makes us look like hysterical weenies to call kamikazes "cowards". They weren't. I disagree. Terrorism is warfare for pussies. How hard is it for someone to annihilate [sic] dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of non-combatants when you don't ever face an armed opponent? Not very, to my mind. Yes, these morons died in the process of "fighting for their cause" (whatever the fuck that is), but it is my opinion that the only reason they died was that they couldn't figure out a way to do this without dying. Besides, the leader(s) of this group wasn't flying the planes, he/they (you can bet it is one or more male leaders) found dupes to do it. It takes balls to stare down the barrel of an armed force (even a defensive force); any spineless scum can slit the throat of a defenseless flight attendant. As to the kamikaze, at least they were honorable enough to take on military targets. And they did so as part of a declared state of war between their country and another. do you expect Osamma, or Moammar, or Saddam to stand up and declare war on the United States? I don't. Bottom line: This is an act of cowardice performed by cowards. Period. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #8,522 by addison 9/12/01 9:04:08 AM Reply	Note on WWII. As to the kamikaze, at least they were honorable enough to take on military targets. And they did so as part of a declared state of war between their country and another. do you expect Osamma, or Moammar, or Saddam to stand up and declare war on the United States? Apparently there were several suicides after Pearl Harbor, when the pilots were informed that in fact, the declaration of war before hand had NOT been made. (There was supposed to be this awesomely timed Declaration of War, and then the planes would arrive as the news hit.) Addison
Post #8,529 by brettj 9/12/01 9:34:16 AM Reply	Regarding cowards and evil demons I agree. This act was one of cowardice because brave men do not beat up on women and children and civilians. Anyone calling these devils brave ought to read up on what the Bible and the Koran have to say about suicide. It is not allowed, period. These evil infected madmen (if they were Islamic or Christian) have disgraced their own religion and will not find favor with Allah or God or with the peace-loving people in the world. These crazed fanatics have perpetrated one of the most violent and heinous single day terrorists acts in World History and will be placed along side of Hitler, Stalin and the rest of the devil squad as cruel and vicious murderers. That's the way I see it at this point. Notice that if you drop the d off of devil you get evil. Does anyone suggested these killers of innocent people were not evil? If not then they have a strange way of showing love and bravery.
Post #8,530 by JayMehaffey 9/12/01 9:36:11 AM Reply	Osama bin Ladin Osama bin Laden declared war on the US a long time ago, some time in the 90's. He has considered himself at war with the US since then, he has no reason to declare war now. If he is behind the attack, and yet publicly denying it, then he is a coward. But I don't think you can call the terrorists that actually made the attack cowards. Stupid and evil, yes, but not cowards. Jay
Post #8,537 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 10:03:05 AM Reply	Question Are the people who carried out the instructions of the leader considered terrorists or are they "soldiers"? And as to saying that they were "evil"... Were any of the pilots/crew of the planes over Japan or Germany in WWII "evil"? Yes, the acts were terrible and reprehensible. Remember we are using our WASP mentality and viewpoint. From their, the actual perpetrator, viewpoint, they were only carring out the instructions from their leader and their reward for sacrificing their life is eternal happiness... We try to train our soldier to question the commands that may be "illegal" but we still had MyLai (sp) where the soldiers convinced themselves that the massacre was a military necessity. Do I condone the violence, the acts? Absolutely not. I believe the leaders should be sought out and executed. [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,576 by JayMehaffey 9/12/01 11:32:47 AM Reply	Terrorist or Soldier The question of them terrorists or soldiers is a rather relative one. They don't meet my definition of soldier, but that is not because of the nature of the attack, rather because of the goal. The Pentagon is a legitimate military target, but the World Trade Center certainly isn't. The WTC was selected only because of the extremely high number of civilian that would be killed, and that marks them as terrorists to me. As for 'evil', I'm not quite sure what you are asking with this question. I understand that civilian casualties are an unavoidable effect of war. But intentionally targeting civilian populations for destruction is certainly evil. And yes, I consider some the bombing done by the Allies during WWII to be fairly evil, mostly the firebombing Japanese cities. I don't know of any bombing that was done just to cause as many civilian casualties as possible though. Jay
Post #8,581 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 11:45:28 AM Reply	Re: Terrorist or Soldier Who is the "evil" one? The pilot who flys the mission or the leader who orders it? Was the "soldier" who hijacked the plane that crashed into the Pentagon 'evil'? Was the "terrorists" who hijacked the planes that crashed into the WTC 'evil'? What is/was the "status" of the person who hijacked the fourth plane and 'failed' in achieving his/her mission? Soldier because target was probably the pentagon or terrorist because the mission failed and "only" killed civilians? [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,598 by JayMehaffey 9/12/01 12:15:53 PM Reply	Re: Terrorist or Soldier The leader who ordered the attack is certainly evil. The question of the individual people that carried it out being is evil is more complex, something that can't be answered without knowing the people themselves. But in general, if the voluntarily carried out the attack then they probably fall into the side of evil. The degree of evil would vary from person to person. It's very likely that some of the people where simple teens that got caught up in a religious frenzy and didn't really consider what they where doing. I would consider such people evil, but not nearly to the same degree as the life long terrorists that gets a kick out of hurting others or the leaders that worked out the attack to kill as many bystanders as possible. Some of the people involved may have been duped or blackmailed into involvment, which renders their cases that much more complex. If the line between good and evil was simple, even we humans would have figured it out. Jay
Post #8,612 by GBert 9/12/01 1:04:32 PM Reply	Bombing to cause civ casualties: Dresden 1945 This is what I know (IIRC) about the firebombing of Dresden. No military targets (factories, plants, installations) in the city, a fact known to everyone on both sides. Because of this, city never bombed before and packed with hundreds of thousands of refugees from the east fleeing the advancing soviet armies in addition to its 600,000 inhabitants. Firebombed by thousands of British and American bombers in multiple waves Feb 13 & 14 1945 (ten weeks before German surrender). Temperatures reached a thousand degrees centigrade, and the city burned for a week. Civilian deaths impossible to calculate, estimated between 135,000 and 300,000. Utter devastation, massive loss of life, terror. No militarily significant targets. Giovanni
Post #8,738 by Ashton 9/12/01 8:24:15 PM Reply	Yes, a war crime, that. Probably much better known about, for Kurt Vonnegut's brilliant story (he was there, in that bunker, in Dresden). ONLY because we won - it was not prosecuted. My Lai OTOH, a lesser crime, committed much later and by a lower echelon of 'ours' - we at least pursued. It's probably just not imaginable that a 'winner' would submit to the fantasy of a fairwitness, and submit to her judgment of deeds done along the way to that winning. Would need a mature species, for such an event. Maybe in the next yuga.. A.
Post #8,786 by Andrew Grygus 9/12/01 11:43:16 PM Reply	Yes, Dresden was a war crime It was pure vengence, no military value. Unfortunately it's really hard to get your public behind hanging your own war heros, especially when the other side was so inescapably the bad guys. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,626 by jb4 9/12/01 1:43:09 PM Reply	Interesting; Can an individual declare war? I mean, doesn't a state of war legally occur between two govenrments? (I know, the concept of "legal war" very closely approximates an oxymoron.) If so, then what "government" does bin Laden claim to be the head of? The Islamic Republic of Moron? And if not (that is, if a state of war can occur between a government and a private citizen or enterprize), then by extension why can't a state of war exist between two (or more) private citizen or enterprizes? Can I declare war on Micros~1 (OOOhh, now that's tempting...) No, I think bin Laden's "Declaration of War" is just so much chest-thumping propaganda. He's nothing but a common criminal...a highly skilled, murderous, cowardly common criminal, but a common criminal nonetheless. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #8,540 by Simon_Jester 9/12/01 10:17:26 AM Reply	It's probably a matter of semantics... First...I'm not unbiased on this issue....and if you can find anyone unbiased, let me know, I'll be amazed. I can't call the teams that took the aircraft either morons or cowards. They executed the attack VERY well - so they can't be morons. They willingly died for their cause, so they aren't cowards. They aren't noble - any idiot can die for a cause and dying for a STUPID cause is ... well ... foolish. So I will give them a SMALL amount of credit - they were willing to die for what they believed in...wonderful, now they're on the same playing field as the combine kids and the idiots believing in UFO's and purple sheets. The real cowards - and why it's called a cowardly act - are the ones who used these kids to make statements.
Post #8,549 by brettj 9/12/01 10:34:29 AM Reply	Who are we calling the terrorists? The evil people that hijacked the plane (by attacking women and children) or the evil people that have developed the plan to commit murder and suicide? Even cowards can be called brave if they walk into danger but "taking candy from a baby" is not an act of bravery. I guess many think that committing suicide is brave. I'm not so sure.
Post #8,551 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 10:40:32 AM Reply	Suicide is different from giving your life for "the cause". Suicide is self destruction for no gain. The people who carried out the attacks knew they were probably going to die and did so willingly (I assume). Ask an infantryman attacking up hill against a fortified gun emplacement what his chances of survial are, and then ask if he will still carryout the attack. "Is suicide to attack, but ..." [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,557 by brettj 9/12/01 10:49:13 AM Reply	I disagree. Suicide: One who takes one's own life. End of debate.
Post #8,543 by marlowe 9/12/01 10:18:03 AM Reply	"Cowardly" is a Clintonism. When those four yahoos in the rubber boat saluted the Cole as they sailed to their death, President Clinton called them "cowardly." Using the word in that way satisifies an emotional agenda, but it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. Cowardice refers to a failure of courage. These guys did not lack courage, by any stretch. And now the Republican Clinton is doing the same thing with that word. By the way, Clinton's handling of most of his scandals could properly be described as cowardly. It certainly wasn't courageous, the way he dodged the truth and hid behind scapegoats. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,590 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 11:59:46 AM Reply	Re: It takes balls... We are now what Britain was during the American Revolutionary War. Our defenses thusfar have been built with the notion that our enemies will obey the "rules of engagement". This is as flawed now as was the King's Army's philosophy some 200 years ago. The Brits expected the colonists to obey the rules of the game and were virtually helpless to the guerilla tactics the colonists employed. We like to think we are more sophisticated, and perhaps we are. But we will forever be vulnerable to this kind of cowardly act as long as we continue to make responses that are "considered, measured and appropriate." Know why no one tried hijacking an Aeroflot airplane out of the Soviet Union? Think there weren't people who desperately wanted out of there? Of course there were and the reason they didn't was that Soviet policy was to shoot the airliner down if it tried to leave Soviet airspace. The mongrels responsible for yesterday's activities are among the most dangerous one can encounter: religious zealots. You can no more convince them that their actions are counter-productive to their cause than you can convince them that their religious beliefs are invalid. One thing Dubya said last night really gave me some heart. As best I can recall it went, "we will not distinguish between those responsible for these attacks and the countries that give them safe harbor." I hope he can stick with that. I say, retaliate swiftly and ferociously. For openers, reduce Afghanistan to rubble and then bounce the rubble around a dozen times or so. They admit they are protecting bin Laden and even if he isn't responsible this time, he sure as hell congratulated those who were.
Post #8,646 by tuberculosis 9/12/01 3:16:21 PM Reply	Exactly Of course they're not going to engage the US Military directly. That would be suicide. But they want to destroy the symbols of American economic and military might. And they did. This clearly points out the stupidity of Bush's new missile defense policy BTW. Modern cruise missiles fly at regularly scheduled intervals, come with passengers, and can be had by anyone with a knife and some nerve. Bush's plan doesn't target those kind of cruise missiles though. Oddly enough, the fool has possibly done us a favor. Nothing cures a recession like a wartime economy and a people focused on a common cause. Left to our own devices we might have languished and fallen like Rome. Now, there's a surge of adrenaline, and a new clarity of purpose. On the military vs civilian targets thing: I am unaware of the military significance of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those cities were selected based on size to showcase our new weapon. While I clearly support the use of nukes in that circumstance (the bombings actually saved lives that would have been lost in a conventional invasion), we are not squeaky clean wrt only hitting "military" targets. Little [link\|http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/sidebars/sherman.html\|piece of history]: Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea" is one of the most famous events in the annals of war. Much has been written about his Savannah Campaign, some acclaiming his brilliant military strategy, others denouncing his ruthless tactics. Sherman wanted to bring the war home to Georgians in harsh terms, proving that the Confederacy couldn't protect its citizens. He also thought that pressure on the home front might lead to desertions on the front lines of the Confederacy, as soldiers learned that their loved ones and property were threatened. Sherman's treatment of defenseless civilians and their private property is legendary, and his "March to the Sea" is frequently described as a "60-mile wide path of utter destruction" in history books, which is somewhat exaggerated if one has seen the beautiful antebellum homes in Madison, Covington, Milledgeville, and other towns on the route. Popularized in song and verse, an abundance of material exists on the March, written mostly from the Northern point of view. Northerners believe it was bold and effective stroke against the Southern foe; Southerners believed his destruction of private property was unnecessary and cruel; and that the March was successful only due to a lack of organized opposition. For Sherman \ufffd the man who said, "War is all Hell" \ufffd his style of warfare was a military issue, not a moral one: "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities," he said. For Sherman it was a type of rear attack, not on the army of the enemy but the people of the enemy. Why are we surprised at the use of similar tactics from others?
Post #8,838 by TTC 9/13/01 9:49:21 AM Reply	Re: It takes balls... > I say, retaliate swiftly and ferociously. For openers, reduce Afghanistan to rubble and then bounce the rubble around a dozen times or so. They admit they are protecting bin Laden and even if he isn't responsible this time, he sure as hell congratulated those who were. > Yup, do that... all who lives in Afghanistan REALLY deserves to die, no sympathy, military or otherwise. Nuke them! Oh wait... isn't that what the terrorists did? So what's the diff? An eye for an eye? Even if you have no evidence that binLaden was responsible? Because he sure as hell congratulated those who were? Then nuke the entire world then. I'm pretty sure there is at least one in every continent/country that "celebrated" the attack, sick as it may sound. If you want to vent your fustration/anger, fine. Otherwise, you're no different than those ****ing fanatics you're condemning.

Welcome to IWETHEY!