Why do people call the terrorist attacks "cowardly"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0


<< I'll never understand why Americans are on some high horse and are so convinced the world revolves around them, and that they are the moral kings of the world. Any other country's ethics and morals are just as valid as our are. >>



So what you are saying is that you really don't have any problem with the Taliban. Islamic fundamentalists? The Chinese? The old Soviet Union? Saddam Hussein? These are all "valid" ways to treat people. I questioned your intelligence after your 3rd post but there is no longer any question about it. You have none.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
It was cowardly because they attacked civilians. But in the confines of war on your enemy, their plan was without question genius. It was completely a surprise and put near executed with perfection. But thats why we are quickly showing them who's still in charge. :)
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81


<< So what you are saying is that you really don't have any problem with the Taliban. Islamic fundamentalists? The Chinese? The old Soviet Union? Saddam Hussein? These are all "valid" ways to treat people. I questioned your intelligence after your 1st post but there is no longer a question. You have none. >>



Having a problem with it and doing something about it are two different things. I dont like the taliban or islamic fundamentalists very much. Communists arent too high in my book either. Throwing the entire chinese nation in there is taking it a little too far though. Sure, most of those people treat people like sh*t, but its realy not our place to say, and absolutely none of our business to regulate them. Their definition of human rights is as subject to opinion as ours is. When they start attacking our population, its a different story.

We did not attack saddam because it was "right", Americans need cheap oil. And the taliban was A OK in our book when it was fighting russia a couple years ago. And now theyre using the weapons that we gave them against us. Islamic fundamentalists directly attacked us, and now theyre getting their asses pounded into the ground.

But I dont see why you have to bring it down to a first grade level. I'm not disrespecting anyone's opinions here, everyones is just as valid as mine. Just participating in a discussion here. Try having an open mind for once, and looking at things from every possible perspective.



 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126


<< Why do people call the terrorist attacks "cowardly"? >>


I'm glad you asked:

To commit suicide is cowardly.
To kill totally innocent people is cowardly.

The terrorists, having killed themselves, do not have to face the consequences here on earth. That is also cowardly.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0


<< But I dont see why you have to bring it down to a first grade level. I'm not disrespecting anyone's opinions here, everyones is just as valid as mine. Just participating in a discussion here. Try having an open mind for once, and looking at things from every possible perspective. >>



Sorry about the first grade thing, I guess I was aiming a little high. I thought you could keep up. I am, without question, disrespecting your opinion. It is naive and moronic. If you want to participate in a discussion you have to have the prerequisite knowledge to do so or you will get hammered. Contrary to your previous post's, it is about right and wrong. You're wrong. Someone has to speak up when things in this world are not right. Furthermore someone has to act when action is needed. I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81


<< Sorry about the first grade thing, I guess I was aiming a little high. I thought you could keep up. I am, without question, disrespecting your opinion. It is naive and moronic. If you want to participate in a discussion you have to have the prerequisite knowledge to do so or you will get hammered. Contrary to your previous post's, it is about right and wrong. You're wrong. Someone has to speak up when things in this world are not right. Furthermore someone has to act when action is needed. I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. >>



Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could with my own words. You seem to be the absolute embodiment of the arrogant, high-horse, holier than thou American psyche that needs to be stopped before it causes even more unrest in the world.
 

Murphyrulez

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2001
1,890
0
0
I agree with Dave.

If you defend the Taliban because "they have a right to their own kind of ethics", then you should also defend serial killers, rapists, and every other madman.

Paul
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0


<< Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could with my own words. You seem to be the absolute embodiment of the arrogant, high-horse, holier than thou American psyche that needs to be stopped before it causes even more unrest in the world. >>



No, thank you for proving my point that you are a naive embecile who somehow thinks we are responsible for what happened on 9/11. If you are so dienchanted with the American psyche, why don't you go live somewhere else. I mean, God forbid, that you have to live in a country that you hate so much.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Its not like firebombing dresden or dropping an atomic bomb is any less "cowardly"

The operative differences are that those missions were carried out in times of war and were against defended targets which had definitive military value.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
When did I ever insinuate or imply that the attack on 9/11 were our fault? When did I ever say I hated america? I thought this was the land of the free, where I can say whatever I want, without fear of oppression?

They obviously have problems with us, for whatever reasons. Are you naive enough to believe that they would start a war with absolutely no grievance whatsoever? Regardless or not of whether we agree with their grievances, they have them regardless. Like I said, every culture has their own moral interpretation.

I'm not patting them on the back for attacking our country. In the perfect world, noone would attack anyone. But wake up, and realize that this is not a perfect world, and never will be. The world is comprised of countless cultures, and there is obviously going to be a clash between us. Even if they dont have a specific grievance, it still doesn't matter. Countries attack other countries all the time, to gain precious resources. This isnt anything new, its just plain Darwinism. People dont start wars for fun, they are always either attacking or defending themselves, and this is no different.

When a countries actions start to conflict with our own interests, then something needs to be done about it. Policing the world is not the answer.




<< The operative differences are that those missions were carried out in times of war and were against defended targets which had definitive military value. >>



Its a war when someone starts one, not when they both shake hands and agree. Someone has to start it, and they just did. If I was an islamic fundamentalist, I probably couldnt think of a better place to start than the world trade center. Killing our entire populations morale by instilling fear is certainly worth a ton of military value.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,391
19,709
146


<< Ask the japanese in 1940 who were the bad guys. I doubt there were a lot of japanese running around saying how what they were doing was morally wrong, like the way americans were protesting during vietnam. >>



We did not attack the Japanese, they attacked us. A sneaky, cowardly attack at that. We weren't attacking other countries, slaughtering their civilians, and performing biological and chemical experiments on their civilians. Nope, that was the Japanese.

And of course no Japanese were protesting the war. They'd have been arrested for doing so.



<< Its not a distinction between right and wrong, it should be a distinction between friend and enemy. Painting it as right and wrong goes a long way for morale, but thats just propaganda. >>



Nope, it's right and wrong, and all the pathetic weasely moral relativism wont change that.



<< I'll never understand why Americans are on some high horse and are so convinced the world revolves around them, and that they are the moral kings of the world. Any other country's ethics and morals are just as valid as our are. >>



So I guess you think it's OK to execute womewn for adultry? Imprison and execute people for homosexuality? The VERY things you liberal whiners complain about, are the very things the middle eastern countries do. Not only are you a moral relativist, you're a hypocrite.



<< I dont want to kill civilians, I dont want to see cities firebombed, and I defintely dont want to see cities demolished by atomic bombs. But if they want beef, so be it, and let them reap what they sow. Right and wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it. >>



Bullsh!t. Morals that infringe on basic human rights are not valid, no matter how you try to justify them.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Denying that dropping "the bomb" saved more lives then it ended puts into question your knowledge of history. The Japanese were fighting to the death and would not have surrendered.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,391
19,709
146


<< When a countries actions start to conflict with our own interests, then something needs to be done about it. Policing the world is not the answer. >>



Isolationism was our policy before WWI and to a lessor extent before WWII. It led to whole scale carnage. Never again. The world has proven far too small to allow rouge states and terrorist states to exist.

Let's look at the absurdity of your statement if it's brought down to a scale you can understand:

"When a serial killer/child molestor/gang member's (pick one) actions start to conflict with our own interests, then something needs to be done about it. Policing the neighborhood is not the answer."
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,391
19,709
146


<< Since people can't keep civilized, I'm done with this. >>



Loosely translated:

"Since I have no clue of world history, and therefore have learned nothing from it, I refuse to have my ass handed to me any further in this debate."
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
>>>"Since I have no clue of world history, and therefore have learned nothing from it, I refuse to have my ass handed to me any further in this debate."



well said
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
No, I'm really just having too good of a day to deal with this.

I still respect each and every one of your opinions, and wish everyone a good day.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0


<< "Since I have no clue of world history, and therefore have learned nothing from it, I refuse to have my ass handed to me any further in this debate." >>



ROFLMAO. Sad part is he still hasn't learned anything.
 

Sounds like trollbait.

Anyway, they are cowards. They were just committing suicide thinking they would wake up in paradise. There was no chance they would live the crash. A real man fights in wars, risking his ass, getting shot up, paralyzied, mamed, etc... These freaks thought they would be Allah's heros. Right.
 

raz

Banned
Feb 19, 2000
643
0
0


<< Someone has to speak up when things in this world are not right. >>


And my vote for that special someone goes to our very own...DaveSohmer!

Who better to yield to torch than ATOT's #1 up-n-coming mudslinger. Here's a few examples to show that Dave, being one of our finest members, has the right stuff when it comes to letting people know just what's what...



<< No, thank you for proving my point that you are a naive embecile who somehow thinks we are responsible for what happened on 9/11. >>





<< I'm flabbergasted. I can't believe anyone would write something so completely moronic. I just can't believe how stupid you are. >>





<< For all of you who think that they should have bought him something else or that you would be embarassed to drive this car you are really some self centered pieces of garbage. >>





<< SuperFool- Your understanding of price supports and gov't subsidies is as thorough as everything else you open your mouth about. None. Zero. Zilch. You prove how ignorant you are with every post. >>




Yes sir. I just want you to know Dave that I'm behind you 100%!

Oh, and for everyone who doesn't agree with anything Dave says or thinks...You're all morons! (Go on Dave, tell 'em)

Dave calls people names, hehe, he's my hero.




 

swayinOtis

Banned
Sep 19, 2000
1,272
0
0

great, this just reminds me how pissed off i got at all the fuggin tards out there who thought those bastards were "brave" for killing themselves.

you're not brave for killing yourself if 1) you're not afraid to die, 2) you think you will be rewarded in the afterlife by your god.

they also attacked innocent, defenseless people. if that isn't cowardly, nothing is.

 

BlackSoul

Senior member
Feb 13, 2001
384
0
0
As I was reading the quotes that Raz so thoughfully compiled for us, I have figured out that Dave must actually be Don Imus. They both have the same impeccable debate skillz. ;)

As to the topic, as has been stated the physical act was not cowardly, but attacking civilians was most definitly cowardly.