|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2001 : 19:04:03
|
One of the words that's been used a lot to describe today's (and other) acts of terrorism is "cowardly". This word disturbs me somewhat.
On the one hand, it takes a certain degree of physical courage to knowingly sacrifice one's life for a cause (no matter how misguided). If such an act is not brave, what is? (Remember, we honor soldiers who undertake such sacrifices with medals.)
On the other hand, by describing one's enemy as "cowardly", one may be dangerously underestimating him... as if he were a schoolyard bully, rather than a bitter antagonist.
I think I understand the reasoning behind the "coward" language. It is an insult, certain to make the target angry (and therefore possibly careless). And it has a certain truth: these acts are covert, executed without warning, and directed against defenseless victims, rather than direct military attacks against military targets that could offer resistance. They lack the "fair play" aspect that we value.
Still, I always cringe a little when I hear it.
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Or is it too far off-topic for this board? On this day of all days, I (for one) can't let it go...
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 19:11:07 [Permalink]
|
The "other side" has always liked to call its enemies cowards. Not to mention a few other choice names. For them it's a war I suppose. Timothy McVie also thought he was fighting a war. Everyone else thought he was nuts but from his point of view it didn't matter what he was called if in his heart he thought he was a true patriot. I think it's all a matter of perspective.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 19:24:38 [Permalink]
|
Just now, my prefered name for them would be "targets".
|
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 19:31:47 [Permalink]
|
I have the impression that the word "coward" is more often used for the sponsors and the masterminds of terrorism, rather than the deluded fools who sacrifice themselves in these acts. The terrorists who flew the planes had all the courage of the insane, the irrational, and the mystical. It is far different from the risks that soldiers take, where there is at least a possibility of survival, and, in most citations for heroism, the need to save one's comrades.
It would be true cowardice to allow these horrible and unprecedented attacks to determine our policy. We might as well install Osama bin Ladin in the White House if we do that.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 21:16:20 [Permalink]
|
About the terrorist attack:
It is being compared to Pearl Harbor too. But there is a difference. Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack to be sure, but it was a military operation. The Japanese pilots were under orders, in uniform, and their aircraft had national insignia of Japan on the wings. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked, there was no doubt who did it, and war was declared.
The destruction of the World Trade Center in New York was done as a sneak attack, but with no political statement or responsibility taken. There are suspects, who hide and take no responsibility. Denial of responsibility is a in fact cowardly.
Chip
"I'd never join an organization that would have a man like me as a member." |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 22:16:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
About the terrorist attack:
It is being compared to Pearl Harbor too. But there is a difference.
Another obvious difference is the target: In Pearl Harbor, the only targets were military; This morning, the targets were also civillian. As a member of the US military, I recognise that I may someday (hopefully not, though) sacrafice my life for my country, and I still choose to serve. The majority of the people victimized by this attack made no such choice.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2001 : 23:00:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I heard Clinton and Bush Sr. before him use the word "coward" under these circumstances, too… it seems to have become the standard political verbiage. Appalling and misled though their acts may be, no, they're not cowards. No more than the Viet Cong were… they're just "fighting us smart," sad though it is. Similarly, the Viet Cong knew they couldn't directly take on the massive firepower and technology of the US, so they engaged us with "hit and run" tactics, used propaganda, and our own self-defeating policies to their advantage… "guerilla warfare" came into it's own. In this respect, terrorism impresses me as an "unofficial" version of guerilla warfare. History stands as testament to it's effectiveness. They know that even an attack of this magnitude can't cripple our infrastructure or military capabilities… the brutality, horror and consequent psychological impact upon our civilian population is their objective… to induce a feeling of fear and vulnerability in us, and confidence in our enemies. And despite the usual political rhetoric, I'm sorry to say that they've succeeded.
As for angering an adversary into carelessness, no, albeit evil, they're not wreckless fools... they're detached, calculated, and cold as ice in their planning and execution... just as the Viet Cong were.
The more large and complex a mechanism and interdependant its parts, the more vulnerable it becomes to attacks of this nature. Such is the case with our society with it's economic, technological, and logistical support systems... ala the computer virus.
Ron White |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2001 : 12:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Cowards. The act of terrorism itself is cowardly. It requires nothing other than the dogmatic wish to die. There is no responsibility taken for the action. The person does not have to *pay the piper* so to speak.
Dying to save your friends/family/fellow military persons is an act of bravery - dying to kill innocent people is an act of cowardace. There is the fundamental difference between the two.
Giving yourself in defense of your country (while patriotic) generally doesn't involve the unmitigated slaughter that occurred yesterday. What happened yesterday was an act intended to frighten, confuse and so on. It was without any further purpose - that's why it's called terrorism.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2001 : 13:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Suicide could be termed cowardly if performed in order to escape resposibility or some "fate worse than death". Hitler commited suicide this way while ordering children and old men to fight to the death against the Soviets. I think that the masterminds could be considered cowardly. Then again, would they actually be able to stand up to the might of the US military and do ANY damage? Probably not.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2001 : 19:46:44 [Permalink]
|
| It takes great courage to sacrifice oneself for any cause. I seriously doubt that many of the individuals supporting this terrorists network and heinous act are cowardly in any ordinary sense, they are certainly willing to fight and die for their cause. I propose that we help them do just that ASAP. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2001 : 21:22:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have the impression that the word "coward" is more often used for the sponsors and the masterminds of terrorism, rather than the deluded fools who sacrifice themselves in these acts. The terrorists who flew the planes had all the courage of the insane, the irrational, and the mystical. It is far different from the risks that soldiers take, where there is at least a possibility of survival, and, in most citations for heroism, the need to save one's comrades.
It would be true cowardice to allow these horrible and unprecedented attacks to determine our policy. We might as well install Osama bin Ladin in the White House if we do that.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980.
I wanted to reply to this orginal post, but D, you answered so well. Also Chippewa, Boron10, Trish, Greg. I agree and really can't add much more.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
