Post by: Nick1911 on April 25, 2008, 06:55:01 AM
I don't particularly agree with their causes or methods, but a person (terrorist) that is willing to give their life for what they believe in isn't someone I'd consider a coward. Someone who is willing to die and kill for their beliefs isn't someone who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.
Killing innocent people, then escaping the consequences through by their own death could be considered cowardly - someone who lacks the courage to accept the responsibilities of their actions.
Again, I'm not saying that I think terrorism is the best way to solve a problem, and I certainly don't condone the killing of innocent people, but I don't see what it's "cowardly".
Thoughts?
Post by: Declaration Day on April 25, 2008, 07:22:32 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on April 25, 2008, 07:36:41 AM
Post by: Tallpine on April 25, 2008, 07:43:46 AM
That's why I think we haven't had more islamic terrorist acts in the USA: once they get over here, 99.99% of the would be suicide-whatevers now have something to live for.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 25, 2008, 08:05:02 AM
I can't call a man who kills himself for a cause a coward.
A man who hides behind civilians while sending others to kill themselves, and other innocent civilians, for a cause, is beyond a coward.
Post by: seeker_two on April 25, 2008, 08:16:37 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 25, 2008, 08:24:41 AM
The act itself, in targeting innocent civilians? That's cowardly.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 25, 2008, 09:48:07 AM
I don't believe that people are calling suicide bombers cowards.
The act itself, in targeting innocent civilians? That's cowardly.
The act itself, in targeting innocent civilians? That's cowardly.
Yes. They're attacking soft targets.
If they went and ran at a military installation, that's war. Attacking civilians is cowardly.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 25, 2008, 09:53:21 AM
Suicide is generally a cowardly thing to do, too. I'm not sure a suicide "for a cause" changes that.
Post by: DJJ on April 25, 2008, 10:08:11 AM
Yes. They're attacking soft targets.
If they went and ran at a military installation, that's war. Attacking civilians is cowardly.
If they went and ran at a military installation, that's war. Attacking civilians is cowardly.
I'll get flamed for this, but I'm forced to ask, then why are-
-The attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983
-The attack on the USS Cole
-All the attacks on US forces in Iraq
-Others?
labelled terrorism?
Post by: LadySmith on April 26, 2008, 01:04:17 AM
Why are terrorist acts always called "cowardly" by people, particularly by the media?
Killing innocent people, then escaping the consequences through by their own death could be considered cowardly - someone who lacks the courage to accept the responsibilities of their actions.
That's what suicide terrorists do.Terrorists go about what they do in a sneaky fashion without giving others a fair or fighting chance. That's cowardly.
Post by: meinbruder on April 26, 2008, 04:32:03 AM
Tallpine is right and most of these people are being paid; at least their families are. Here its possible to eat out of a dumpster if needed, over there is nothing but sand. Dont forget that they are promised eternal bliss in heaven; people around the world devote themselves to that goal and a Muslim can achieve it in less than a second by dieing while killing an infidel. What baffles me is that most of the victims are also Muslim, of a different sect to be sure but still Muslim. Violence over a religious difference is also cowardly; once again the victim is random and defenseless.
A terrorist sneaks in the dark and attacks the innocent; a freedom fighter stands in the light and attacks the oppressor.
Da Bianhua
}:)>
Post by: JohnBT on April 26, 2008, 06:35:50 AM
I think so.
John