Why do people call the terrorist attacks "cowardly"?

[killmeplease]

I really can't understand somebody not seeing attacking unarmed civilians in a sneek attack as being cowardly.

Duh

Troll

 

[BD2003]

Ah, so i'm bored. Allow me to ignite the pilot light again.



<< "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." >>



If this is how you interpreted my statement, then you got it wrong. Let me explain. Its one thing to police the world when its interests conflict with ours. That I fully agree with. But what was the american interest in somalia? In Yugoslavia?

Look at it this way. If a murderer has a gun to the head of someone you have never met before, and you know nothing about, are you going to help him? Risk getting your head blown off for someone you dont even know? You're not dealing with getting hurt, if you fail, youre going to die. Regardless of whether or not yuo agree with putting a gun to that persons head (Which I hope you dont), are you going to personally do something about it? I dont know about you, but I'm staying the hell away. I'd love to help the guy out, but I'm not getting killed over it.




<< 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. >>



Why has the isolationism of our country had such a profound effect on the entire stabilty of the planet? Is the rest of the world truely so weak that they can't defend themselves? My problem lies not so much with the stamping out of rogue state and general troublemakers like yugoslavia and iraq, but its the fact that america is the one doing it. America was the main opposing force in korea, vietnam, iraq, yugoslavia and many other wars on a smaller scale in recent history. The world says they have our back, and they send a few troops and a few planes, but its always Americans doing the fighting. The rest of the world is just not doing its part. American lives are no more or less valuable than anyone else's life. UN and NATO are great, but theyre just commitees. If the world is so bent on stamping out troublemakers, why isnt the UN and NATO an army bigger than any other country by itself could wish to combat?

Maybe we're just not there yet as a global community. I doubt itll be in my lifetime. If the world wants to be rid of terrorism and instability, then the world needs to get together. But its always say one thing, then do another, and expect big brother america to do all the dirty work.

But the main thing I'm trying to understand here is, if morality is not relative, what is it based upon? Where can I find the official moral rulebook? If morality isnt relative, there has to be a distinct, definable set of morals. If it is based upon religious beliefs, why only that religion? Are other religions set of morals invalid and wrong?

 

[Lucky]

<< It's because they are attacking innocent civilians.

Brave warriors attack the enemies warriors not their women and children. >>




Ay yes, but all four planes had targets which contained their enemies!. The WTC was a symbolic enemy, one that represented the "infidel" society he wishes to destroy.

One was crashed in the pentagon, certainly a target even in a conventional sense. Its the pentagon for christs sake!!! If you want to kill your enemies warriors, it cant get much better than attacking the pentagon!!!

One was headed for either the white house or the capitol building, obviously hoping to kill politicians and such. Civilians were an added bonus for bin laden.


I hate to say it, but Marty the Maniak has a good post here:

Well, according to George S. Patton:


<< "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, 'To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.' " >>

Now, it seems to me, that if the terrorists had declared war on the US and then attacked the military in a traditional manner, they wouldn't have achieved much, if anything at all. Thus attacking civilians without any notification was their best course, for not only did they bring down the WTC, but also managed to destabalize the economy of virtually all western nations.
[i/]

 

[Lithium381]

Yeah, i was wondering that myself(original question) and wow, i can't beleive i didn't see it, heh, it's staring at me in the face, and the worse thing is it's TRUE, those cowards......good thread/discussoin going on here..

 

[gumbysucks]

I thought that describing the attacks as cowardly , almost seemed like we were trying to provoke more attacks, It just didn't sound like the best way for the media to describe it . Especially with the warnings that further attacks were likely.
I also don't like the media giving out ideas to terrorists. Like gas truck bombs, water system contamination, etc.

 

[Amused]

<< Ah, so i'm bored. Allow me to ignite the pilot light again.



<< "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." >>



If this is how you interpreted my statement, then you got it wrong. Let me explain. Its one thing to police the world when its interests conflict with ours. That I fully agree with. But what was the american interest in somalia? In Yugoslavia? >>



Yugoslavia had two reasons:

1. Because small conflicts can turn into world conflicts very quickly, or have you learned nothing from WWI?

2. Humanitarian reasons

Somalia started as a humanitarian food effort, and turned into a police action when relief supplies were being stolen by warlords.

A destabilized world is an unsafe world. One small destabilized region can grow and fester into a global conflict.



<< Look at it this way. If a murderer has a gun to the head of someone you have never met before, and you know nothing about, are you going to help him? Risk getting your head blown off for someone you dont even know? You're not dealing with getting hurt, if you fail, youre going to die. Regardless of whether or not yuo agree with putting a gun to that persons head (Which I hope you dont), are you going to personally do something about it? I dont know about you, but I'm staying the hell away. I'd love to help the guy out, but I'm not getting killed over it. >>



Well, considering the fact that I've been a soldier, and was willing to fight for your life and freedoms, I'd say yes, I'd risk my life to save others. Even those I don't know.



<<

<< 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. >>



Why has the isolationism of our country had such a profound effect on the entire stabilty of the planet? >>



Because conflicts can, and have grown to the point that they end up affecting us in the long run. Two world wars taught us this, yet people like you refuse to learn from our mistakes.



<< Is the rest of the world truely so weak that they can't defend themselves? >>



No, the rest of the world is that equally matched. The Iran Iraq war lasted 8 years, with no winner.

Get this straight, as I've pointed it out over and over again:

It is in our best interest to keep the peace in this world, because every conflict, every two bit dictator, and every terrorist organization has the ability to affect us sooner or later. It is in our best interest to keep the world as free, democratic and capitalistic as possible in order the promote trade, protect basic human rights, and protect ourselves.

Our world is like a small neighborhood now. Everything our neighbors do can, and usually does, have a direct effect on us.



<< My problem lies not so much with the stamping out of rogue state and general troublemakers like yugoslavia and iraq, but its the fact that america is the one doing it. America was the main opposing force in korea, vietnam, iraq, yugoslavia and many other wars on a smaller scale in recent history. The world says they have our back, and they send a few troops and a few planes, but its always Americans doing the fighting. The rest of the world is just not doing its part. American lives are no more or less valuable than anyone else's life. UN and NATO are great, but theyre just commitees. If the world is so bent on stamping out troublemakers, why isnt the UN and NATO an army bigger than any other country by itself could wish to combat? >>



We do it because no other country has the stomach, or the resources to act in this capacity. Plus, we've been dragged kicking and screaming into two world wars. Conflicts that, at first, had no direct effect on us, but after we let them explode they hit home very fast.



<< Maybe we're just not there yet as a global community. I doubt itll be in my lifetime. If the world wants to be rid of terrorism and instability, then the world needs to get together. But its always say one thing, then do another, and expect big brother america to do all the dirty work. >>



It sucks, but after two global conflicts someone has to do it. And with rouge states and terrorists gaining the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, it NEEDS to be done. If no one else will do it, I'm damn glad we are.



<< But the main thing I'm trying to understand here is, if morality is not relative, what is it based upon? Where can I find the official moral rulebook? If morality isnt relative, there has to be a distinct, definable set of morals. If it is based upon religious beliefs, why only that religion? Are other religions set of morals invalid and wrong? >>



It is based on basic human rights. It stems from empathy, and is defined as do not do to others, as you would not have them do to you. No religion, or mysticism needed. The sad part here is that you need all of this spelled out for you.

To sum it up, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. SOMEONE has to police the world, if for nothing else, for the preservation of our lives, our country, and our way of life. If no one else is willing, we'll step up to the plate.

 

[Amused]

<< I thought that describing the attacks as cowardly , almost seemed like we were trying to provoke more attacks, It just didn't sound like the best way for the media to describe it . >>



What would you have them do? Describe them as great heros and honor their bravery? They are scum. The people who brain washed them and put them up to it are scum. Kissing their ass isn't going to make them stop.



<< Especially with the warnings that further attacks were likely.
I also don't like the media giving out ideas to terrorists. Like gas truck bombs, water system contamination, etc. >>



Anything the media has thought of, the terrorists have thought of too.

 

[element]

<< Anything the media has thought of, the terrorists have thought of too. >>



Oddly enough the terrorists are thought to have gotten the idea of using planes from the trial following the '93 bombing of the WTC. It was disclosed in the trial that it would take a plane larger than a Boeing 707 to take the towers down. Not exactly the media, but was that information really necessary to give out during the trial to convict them of bombing it in '93?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Anything the media has thought of, the terrorists have thought of too. >>



Oddly enough the terrorists are thought to have gotten the idea of using planes from the trial following the '93 bombing of the WTC. It was disclosed in the trial that it would take a plane larger than a Boeing 707 to take the towers down. Not exactly the media, but was that information really necessary to give out during the trial to convict them of bombing it in '93? >>



The specs for the building are available, and have been, to anyone who wants them. When they were built it was published in the paper about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707.

Structural engineering is not a top secret profession. They could have paid any engineer to figure out what it would take to bring the buildings down.

 

[BlackSoul]

The tower DID withstand the crashes. It was fires burning at several thousand degrees for an hour or so that melted the steel and brought the buildings down.

 

[AndrewR]

Its a war when someone starts one, not when they both shake hands and agree.

However, even the Japanese, not known for their respect for human rights in WWII, attacked a MILITARY target at the onset of the war, as did the Germans when they attacked Poland, the Low Countries, France, and the Soviet Union.

But what was the american interest in somalia? In Yugoslavia?

The first one was a humanitarian interest, which appealed to the bleeding hearts around the country. That was a big mistake, and I think that we should just let that whole damn continent go to hell from now on. Oh, wait, it already is. Idiots in Somalia don't realize when someone is trying to help them -- let them starve.

Now, Yugoslavia had definite and legitimate reasons for being there. First off, there was genocide being committed -- did you happen to forget that? People around the world should be interested when one group of people is attempting to exterminate another with a systematic program. Tack on to that the proximity of Yugoslavia to other European nations which have interests in the region, and you have a grave potential for outright war among nation-states. Had Yugoslavia decided to attack the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, Hungary might have decided to attack Serbia from the north. Or, if Serbia had decided to start cleaning out those pesky Macedonians, Greece could have decided that enough is enough and invaded from the south. Either of those situations could have resulted in the deployment of Russian troops to the region. There was a very real, very dangerous potential for widespread conflict.

Ok, how about we take off the kid gloves and be just as brave as the terrorists -- let's drop some nice nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina. After all, that strikes at the VERY HEART of the Islamic fundamentalists, no? Then, we tell the Israelis to just go ahead and level the Dome of the Rock so they can excavate the Temple Mount.

 

[element]

<< The specs for the building are available, and have been, to anyone who wants them. When they were built it was published in the paper about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707.

Structural engineering is not a top secret profession. They could have paid any engineer to figure out what it would take to bring the buildings down. >>



True they could have, but they didn't think to do that in '93 when they first bombed it unsuccessfully. During the trial they learned how the buildings could be toppled.

 

[4824guy]

<< I really don't see what's cowardly about ramming a jet full of passengers and yourself into a building full of people. >>



Because true warriors and people with respect for others dont' kill innocent civilian people traveling on planes. The innocent people killed had nothing to do with the cause that these cowardly terrorits had on their minds. They wanted to hurt America, and these poor people, some elderly, many defenceless women, are not America, they are innocent airline travelers.

Why do the people in Afganistan call the US cowardly and terrorists for accidently killing some civilians?

 

[MustangSVT]

hmm...

what they did may be evil, WRONG, and horrible.. but definatly not "cowardly"

cowardly is more like bombing the whole village from far away...

I dont know which side is right or wrong anymore...... killing ppl is wrong.

 

[db]

<< what they did may be evil, WRONG, and horrible.. but definatly not "cowardly" >>


If some fanatic student drove a gas truck through the walls of your school killing nearly everyone there,
would you say he was brave? Or is he a crazed fanatic who doesn't quite have a grip?
1. He is dead so he doesn't have to answer for his actions--that is the height of irresponsibility b/c he is not "facing up to"; and in hurting others during this act, it is cowardice.

 

[Dean]

Both sides of the argument are right and wrong at the same time. Its more of a battle between human resources and technological resources. The terrorists have no means when it comes to technology. They have to fight battles on the human scale to have victories in their eyes. On the western world view, we have the technical resources, but will no longer commit to fight on the human scale. On that note everyone on both sides are so called COWARDS or HEROS, it just depends on what side you are on.

We here have a higher value on an individuals life than in other cultures. We also put our military in action with the notion that each serviceman will have a very low chance of getting killed as technology protects us. If the roles were reversed and it was the enemy who were far more superior in a technology sense would we stoop to the low level of attacking civilians in the hopes of inflicting a feeling of vulnerability on the enemy? You're damn right we would!!

What i do get a kick out of is how the Taliban try to use the civilian deaths over there from our attacks against us. When you know in fact they don't give a $hit about the civilians of Afghanistan. Saddam was the same way and he tried those little tactics to try to weaken our resolve.

We all have to realize that the money we put into technology to protect our troops makes our civilians a target as they are our only weakness.

 

[jjones]

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


Because it was cowardly. The same as if you strapped a bomb onto the back of a 3 year old toddler and walked it into a building to blow it up.

 

[MustangSVT]

<<

<< what they did may be evil, WRONG, and horrible.. but definatly not "cowardly" >>


If some fanatic student drove a gas truck through the walls of your school killing nearly everyone there,
would you say he was brave? Or is he a crazed fanatic who doesn't quite have a grip?
1. He is dead so he doesn't have to answer for his actions--that is the height of irresponsibility b/c he is not "facing up to"; and in hurting others during this act, it is cowardice. >>



hmm, some fanatic ? why do u think these terrorists are attacking US? u think we havent harmed anyone in the past or caused this to happen?

you dont have to answer that.

whoever is stronger or has more support in numbers become correct anyways, even if they are wrong.

however i think it is wrong to think that terrorists are just crazy ppl who only attacks "innocent" ppl.

 

[BD2003]

<< It sucks, but after two global conflicts someone has to do it. And with rouge states and terrorists gaining the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, it NEEDS to be done. If no one else will do it, I'm damn glad we are. >>



I suppose I agree with you there, but why wasnt france, england and russia jumping in there with us? Yugoslavia is a continent away. If anyone had the biggest interest there it'd be russia. They both shared slavic roots. But america went in and dropped bombs on them, and I remember quite clearly how the vast majority of the world was against it.

The problem is, we're deciding who's right and who's wrong. Its no wonder the tables can be easily turned on us.




<< It is based on basic human rights. It stems from empathy, and is defined as do not do to others, as you would not have them do to you. >>



If thats not relative, I dont know what is.




<< However, even the Japanese, not known for their respect for human rights in WWII, attacked a MILITARY target at the onset of the war, as did the Germans when they attacked Poland, the Low Countries, France, and the Soviet Union. >>



But as luckster pointed out, many of the targets were "military targets." I dont think they could have chosen better targets at all. They know theyre not going to be able to fight a full scale war, so they did the absolute best they could do given the resources at hand, and were successful.



<< Ok, how about we take off the kid gloves and be just as brave as the terrorists -- let's drop some nice nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina. After all, that strikes at the VERY HEART of the Islamic fundamentalists, no? >>



If you want to draw a parallel to attacking the WTC, I suppose that would be it. But thats not neccessary. We dont need to instill fear and hatred in them, because we know for a fact that we can kick their ass. We've got all the morale we need, and the days have 9/11 have proven that. Besides, theres far too many muslims and jews in this country to allow that to happen. Those arent israeli and palenstinean targets, those are worldwide religious targets. But no one is talking about nukes here. Sure, 6,000 people got killed in the WTC, but thats nowhere near the damage a nuclear warhead would do. Its not even in the same ballpark.

Just keep in mind that no matter how much we believe that our citizens are innocent, they do not. Nothing will convince them that each and every one of our citizens, whether civilian, military or politician, isnt as guilty as the next.

Can dropping bombs and cruise missles from miles away and far out of anyones reach over afghanistan, iraq and afghanistan considered cowardly? We're certainly not fighting them fairly. Not giving them a chance to strike back, like a "real man" would. Why is dropping bombs from an unreachable height any less cowardly?

 

[Amused]

<< hmm, some fanatic ? why do u think these terrorists are attacking US? u think we havent harmed anyone in the past or caused this to happen? >>



Sheesh, see my signature line. :|

 

[jjones]

<<
hmm, some fanatic ? why do u think these terrorists are attacking US? u think we havent harmed anyone in the past or caused this to happen?

you dont have to answer that.

>>


another ignorant apologist. by your logic every country on earth should be subject to ongoing terrorism and all terrorists have justifiable actions.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< 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... >>



Ras- I appreciate the highlight reel. You've left out some of my favorite quotes, so I'm afraid it only grades out to like maybe a B-. Keep trying though, you'lldo better. I wanted to do the same for you but I couldn't find anything that you've written here even remotely worth repeating. Maybe when you get out of grade school you'll do better.

 

[swayinOtis]

<< hmm...

what they did may be evil, WRONG, and horrible.. but definatly not "cowardly" >>



what? people who kill innocent, unsuspecting people are cowards, period. it's a no brainer. people who kill themselves because they think they will be rewarded in heaven are selfish cowards. just because they died doesn't make what they did brave. they thought they would be rewarded like a dog who gets a milk bone for sitting. if they are not cowardly what are they, then? what is the opposite of coward, is it brave? would you call them brave? you wouldn't call them brave around me because i'd slap the taste out of your mouth.

 

[swayinOtis]

<< hmm, some fanatic ? why do u think these terrorists are attacking US? u think we havent harmed anyone in the past or caused this to happen?

you dont have to answer that.

whoever is stronger or has more support in numbers become correct anyways, even if they are wrong.

however i think it is wrong to think that terrorists are just crazy ppl who only attacks "innocent" ppl. >>



it's ironic that you choose the r/w/b ribbon as your symbol here.

 

[pookguy88]

<<

<< 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... >>



Ras- I appreciate the highlight reel. You've left out some of my favorite quotes, so I'm afraid it only grades out to like maybe a B-. Keep trying though, you'lldo better. I wanted to do the same for you but I couldn't find anything that you've written here even remotely worth repeating. Maybe when you get out of grade school you'll do better. >>



Jeez, this Dave guy really does call everyone stupid. And he keeps talking about grade school, what's up with that?