Who are the cowards?

[janeeng]

Another great letter, probably old, but I found it funny! this Yamin Zakaria, is a joke!


The recent martyrdom operation, led the White House condemning it as an act of “cowardice”. A coward is the one who runs way from the battlefield in fear of his life, rather then sacrificing himself. Such sacrifice is the exact opposite of cowardice. Perhaps the White House assess “cowardice” by referring to the actions of its own chicken hawks that have avoided the various drafts for the past wars. Then calling for war against defenceless nations, demonstrating their bravado whilst insulated in their bunkers!

Donald Rumsfeld congratulating his armed forces to hide their disgrace, who are nothing but cowards. They resorted to flattening an area with high altitude bombings (B52), and Cruise missiles, with total disregard for civilian casualties. Now that their soldiers are shooting unarmed civilians, are these the examples of bravery the White House is referring to? Surely this is the height of cowardice! Similarly the betrayal from the Iraqi Bath party or its republican elite forces seems to be emerging through the “fog of war”. If they did not have the courage or intention to fight the invaders, then why the charade? Why the defenceless civilians were allowed to face the most well equipped army in the world? Would it not have been better to simply let Saddam along with his Bath party to go into exile, which surely would have prevented the carnage!

It is the ordinary Iraqi civilians that have been the real brave souls in this war. Their courageous defiance to resist the occupiers and outright rejection of the degenerate Jerry-Springer culture has been the real source of humiliation for these neo-Mongol invaders. Failure of the Bathist ideology and Arab nationalism is self-evident and there is a growing power vacuum in the Iraq, not in terms of whom but what will govern her.

Yamin Zakaria

 

[Man of 1951]

how do you find this a joke?

 

[janeeng]

Never said the post was a joke, said the guy that wrote it is - if you go and read some of his so called letters, you might say the same thing. I happen to have sided with Bush and the war, and I think that some of the letters on the issue on how Bush is the coward and the US is a complete Joke in itself!

 

[Man of 1951]

I've read some of his articles, and I would say they are pretty good. His topic of who's a coward is interesting. One thing i want to point out is in the movie Pearl Harbour, the actor (one of the baldwins) was asked what to do if they run out of fuel while flying through a japanese city. His reply was that he would fly his plane into the biggest factory he saw. Funny how the crowd sees that as honour.....
I'm just saying suicide bombers aren't cowards. I don't agree with what they do, but i wouldn't call them cowards because they are dying fighting what they believe in. And i can't see how lobbing thousands of bombs and missles to other countries is honourable. I too would see that as being a coward because they can no longer face their enemy, they fight from behind the lines to protect their own soldier's lives, which are important, but at the same time 'minimizing' the deaths of civilians. A soldier facing a soldier in the end minimizes the deaths of all civilians, and would therefore be better than to fight from behind the lines.

 

[janeeng]

Maybe so! but, when your told to blowup yourself to bring yourself to God, or running into a crowd of innocent people or buildings, that's a COWARD, sorry, my opinion - when that's your only means of fighting to blow yourself up and not fight yep, that's a coward. I didn't see any of the US just strapping bombs on their backs and running into a country fighting for what they believe in blowing up people. People talk about brainwashing, that's a sure brainwashing right there! you want to protect for what you believe in, there are other ways then blowing up yourself.

 

[Jack]

Would anybody like to say what the Koran says about attacking innocent people or people that can't defend themselves. What a contradiction. Maybe this is a religion of make it up as you go. Whatever fits best.

 

[janeeng]

Here's a link to read up on the Chapters of "The Holy Qur'an" -
Love the section on DIVORCE!

Qur'an

 

[Jackass]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
I too would see that as being a coward because they can no longer face their enemy, they fight from behind the lines to protect their own soldier's lives, which are important, but at the same time 'minimizing' the deaths of civilians. A soldier facing a soldier in the end minimizes the deaths of all civilians, and would therefore be better than to fight from behind the lines.

But sitting on a bus loaded with innocent civilians..women and children is homorable?? Man you have issues!

 

[janeeng]

Yeah but Jackass, he is going to say that the US has gone to Iraq and killed innocent too! only difference is, the US didn't just strap on bombs and go into a building, fly into a building or walk into a mall, they were in WAR, they fought back, and yes, some innocent die, that sucks, but it happens - but like 9/11 you tell me that they were defending their country and weren't COWARDS, Bullshit, that's the biggest of COWARDS, holding hostage innocent people and using them to kill others.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by Jack
Would anybody like to say what the Koran says about attacking innocent people or people that can't defend themselves. What a contradiction. Maybe this is a religion of make it up as you go. Whatever fits best.

I'm not muslim, but maybe you should post that in the MUSLIM forum.

But sitting on a bus loaded with innocent civilians..women and children is homorable??

Who ever said that was honourable?? What I'm saying is that one difference is that they are sacrificing themselves for a cause. As shamed they should be for taking down innocents with them, its not being a coward (definition: One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.). A Coward is one who avoids faciing the enemy, fighting from behind the lines where they don't sacrifice themselves or anything. Lobbing bombs is nothing to be proud of.

they were in WAR, they fought back

indeed you are right....a war they started, so they aren't fighting 'back' they are attacking.
What do think of this shock and awe?? huh? Have you seen the images and videos of baghdad being bombed? Do you think anyone is the vicinity of those bombs? Are any of those ppl innocents? Yes, YES and YES.
No america doesn't strap bombs on themselves, instead they throw the bombs over so that their objective is done, without harming themselves in any way.
The shame is that these people feel that the only way out is to kill themselves and take others down with them. I pity them for feeling that is the only way out, but i think, what drives them to do this?? If you look at the oppression of palestinians, there is much reason. Every single suicide bomber believes that by killing themself and others, they can get their message across. What they do IS SHAMEFUL, but that doesn't make them cowards, they are at least able to face their enemy and be willing to die fighting for what they believe. Amerca on the other hand can't handle sacrifice, and therefore will lob thousands of missles and bombs to cities. If you look at the thread "American History most Americans don't know" i think you'll see what drives these ppl to such insanity.

Listen innocents die yes, america is willing to accept the death count of civilians in Iraq, and that is the same thing that the suicide bombers think. They are willing to accept their deaths (as in civilian) as acceptable considering their cause. EXACTLY THE SAME MENTALITY OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. As I said, if the american government really cares about the death of inncocents they would face their enemy instead of hiding behind the lines while they hull bombs and missles. This way when they face the enemy, they would be thus facing the enemy and possibly be killing the enemy, and therefore less civilian deaths!

 

[jimnyc]

I'm not muslim, but maybe you should post that in the MUSLIM forum.

I believe Jack's posts was in reference to the following, which was brought up in THIS thread, and I think it was an appropriate response:

I'm just saying suicide bombers aren't cowards. I don't agree with what they do, but i wouldn't call them cowards because they are dying fighting what they believe in.

***************************************************

The shame is that these people feel that the only way out is to kill themselves and take others down with them. I pity them for feeling that is the only way out, but i think, what drives them to do this??

So they hijacked 3 airliners and flew them into buildings because they felt that was the only way out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we NOT in either Afghanistan or Iraq at the time?

They didn't believe in our policy nor our support for Israel, so they made a statement by bringing down 2 of the USA's most recognizable buildings and killing 3,000 innocent people within an hours time frame. They deserve no pity and this in no way was an "honorable" act.
**************************************************

Amerca on the other hand can't handle sacrifice, and therefore will lob thousands of missles and bombs to cities.

Not true at all. America has a much more advance military that operates in stages. Gather intelligence, invade by air, follow up on foot. Soldiers have been on the ground since the outset of this war and are still there to this day. We are losing an average of 1 soldier per day since the war started.

Not one bomb or missile delivered by the USA was done so with reckless abandon. Every effort was made to minimize civilian deaths. Bombs have went astray at times, and the USA has had to answer for everyone of them. There is quite a difference between attacking an enemy that hides within civilians compared to them just outright attacking civilians.

Listen innocents die yes, america is willing to accept the death count of civilians in Iraq, and that is the same thing that the suicide bombers think.

And how much conversation and effort do you think the terrorists put into avoiding civilians? Oh, thats right, NONE! Claiming that our military has similar thinking to terrorists is just absurd.

As I said, if the american government really cares about the death of inncocents they would face their enemy instead of hiding behind the lines while they hull bombs and missles.

Who the hell is hiding? Are the American soldiers not occupying Iraq right now? Where are the Iraqi soldiers, Baath loyalists & terrorists? THEY ARE THE ONES HIDING! Unless of course you count when they come out with bombs strapped to a vehicle and crash into buildings.

 

[janeeng]

The shame is that these people feel that the only way out is to kill themselves and take others down with them. I pity them for feeling that is the only way out, but i think, what drives them to do this??

Stupidity is what I think, ok! We have choices, no one is going to have be strap bombs to myself. Ok, so maybe in Iraq or other countries, maybe they HAD no choice, but why still want to do it? and why would you take planes and hijack innocent people? you can't tell me that they HAD to do it, they wanted to do it, oh but that's right the God above that they believe in claims this will bring them to the gates! HELLO!

Iraq was also warned of this war! there were chocies! did the twin towers get warned? did the people on the planes get a warning before they entered the planes? and yeah, go ahead, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it's not about that, it's about COWARDS and choices. BTW - yes, we have a lot of cowards here in the USA too, Tim McVeigh showed what a true COWARD he was too! because of not liking our Goverment, take out innocent people that had nothing to do with it, but worked in a building.

 

[Man of 1951]

OK you guys have got to be clear with your definition of a COWARD.

cow¡Pard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kourd)
n.
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Is that clear? Now, someone who is willing to kill themselves for what they believe in. AS STUPID AND RETARDED AND EVIL AND DISHONOURABLE AND WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AS IT IS, IT'S NOT COWARDLY.

Not one bomb or missile delivered by the USA was done so with reckless abandon.

You're right, except they drop cluster bombs which later leave mini mines on the grounds where kids play, except the fact that they bombed a wedding in afghanistan....except the fact that more innocents have died in afghanistan and iraq so that the death toll far exceeds that of sept. 11th.

They deserve no pity and this in no way was an "honorable" act.

Firstly, who the hell said it was honourable?? I clearly said that it was not honourable.
Secondly, I pity them for feeling it was the right thing to do to take those planes into the buildings of innocents. I pity them for having that mentality.
At the beginning of the war, wasn't this shock and awe cowardly?? I mean people were sitting comfortably in their cockpits launching missles and dropping bombs on a city. Killing people. You're right, the ground troops actually face the enemy whcih i never called cowardly. I call cowardly those who launch missles from behind the lines where they put themselves in no way of harm as they destroy lives.

 

[janeeng]

I call cowardly those who launch missles from behind the lines where they put themselves in no way of harm as they destroy lives.

How can you even begin to call any of our men/women cowards??? so, you say that as long as they are on the front lines, face to face with the enemy, that's ok? but if in a plane dropping bombs, then your a coward??? that's bullshit! how many planes have we lost in any WAR??? The military and those that serve it have more class and courage than anybody I know. They had a choice, they didn't have to go into a any war and know that they may not come home. They went to war to give us freedom and to protect their land too! Cowards, let me ask you this? have you ever served? would you?

Pity civilians fine, but did you pity the innocent lives lost here in the USA??? Everyone pity's the poor poor Iraq people, hey, they knew what was coming! WE DIDN'T!!!! innocent don't deserve to die, but it happens and it sucks, but had I have been warned of a possible strike, you bet your ass, I would be out of harms way!

Part of me would rather have just saw the USA shut it's damn borders and keep out of other countries, let them kill one another and live the shitty life they desire..
The thanks you get!!!!

 

[Man of 1951]

You're right, maybe not the fighter pilots and other pilots, but when we launch missles from ships or from a safe distance away...thats what i call cowardly. Because they don't put themselves in any danger. But high altitude bombers are completely safe from any danger, while they drop bombs on cities. I call them cowardly for killing people while they put themselves in safe positions.
And yes i did pity the lose of civlians in america, as i do in other countries. I pity any loss of civilian life.
Yes they may have been warned, but where are they supposed to go? The borders were closed, their country was being invaded and bombed. So if they don't get out in time, you wouldn't pity them? Whether they were warned or not, i feel sorry that they had to pay for the decisions of others.
On the topic of cowardly, how are the suicide bombers cowardly? could you explain that please with a definition of a coward and reasons to support calling the suicide bombers cowards.

No i haven't served, and no i don't plan to. I'm all for peace and don't believe war can cause peace.

And yeah civilian deaths suck, whether they're warned or not, whether they are american or not.

 

[jimnyc]

Is that clear? Now, someone who is willing to kill themselves for what they believe in. AS STUPID AND RETARDED AND EVIL AND DISHONOURABLE AND WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AS IT IS, IT'S NOT COWARDLY.

On the topic of cowardly, how are the suicide bombers cowardly? could you explain that please with a definition of a coward and reasons to support calling the suicide bombers cowards.

"Soon, as Israel hesitates in its codified pattern of surrender to "Palestine," the Arab suicide bomber will reemerge. Yet, for all his alleged courage, the "suicide bomber" will always be a coward. Wanting the world to believe that he is willing to suffer death for his cause, it is actually an overriding fear of death that will again occasion his ecstatic murder of old women and young children." - Louis Rene Beres - Professor of International Law

How about a little reference to the Quran itself?

"An oft repeated theme in Qur’an refers to life hereafter—not reincarnation but the life in final abode. Giving a name to one’s home is a common practice; I saw in Karachi a home with a carved name: “Temporary Abode.” What people often fail to understand that the final abode is not offered at the risk of dismantling the present abode? In fact, much of the teaching of Islam goes to inculcate taking full interest in life and living it fully. As a result suicide has clearly been forbidden; it is listed as a cowardly act. Every creature of God, man being no exception, has a purpose, Qur’an states categorically. Man does not have the option of going against the plan of God. This is the reason why Arabic newspapers never call the terrorists, suicide bombers, for that would connote clearly that it was an un-Islamic act. A “Muslim suicide bomber” would therefore tantamount to an oxymoron. And obviously, newspapers do not want to take the responsibility of deciding this issue. The newspapers may use the word equivalent for terrorist for all others so labeled except where a suicide is involved. So that settles the issue of translating suicide bombers as martyrs—it is an easy escape; fully understandable."
http://niazi.com/Neurons/do_suicide_bombers.htm

You're right, except they drop cluster bombs which later leave mini mines on the grounds where kids play, except the fact that they bombed a wedding in afghanistan....except the fact that more innocents have died in afghanistan and iraq so that the death toll far exceeds that of sept. 11th.

Bombed a wedding? Aren't you stretching that a bit? The wedding was over. Some participants were driving around in their jeeps and trucks away from where the event took place and they were firing automatic weapons in the air. Nice try on the spin though! I believe those firing were using weapons banned by US military and they had broke the imposed curfew.

 

[eric]

Are you kidding me? You think using technology to save American lives is cowardly? I think it is smart. Who ever said war should be fair? I'll admit I certainly am not the great humanitarian you seem to be, because I am much more concerned about our fighting men and women than our opposition. As far a civilian casualties are concerned of course we should try our best to avoid them, but it is not always possible, and I certainly am not willing to risk American lives to do so. I say this with experience in this matter; my family was in Germany during WWII and I lost family members to US bombing. Do I blame the US? Do I call the government terrorists? No, it was war, and it is a fact that people will die. My parents recognized this during the war and even decided to come here and make a new life.

Also your point about the hijackers not being cowards is fundamentally flawed. These people truly believed that by doing what they did they will go to paradise. How is this a sacrifice? In fact it seems rather selfish to me!

These things were low-life scum and are exactly where they need to be. Rest assured where they are is not the paradise they envisioned! STUPID FOOLS!

 

[5stringJeff]

I posted this a while ago, but I think it is relevant, regarding what is cowardly, dishonorable, etc.:
BTW my personal opinion is that the terrorists, while the lowest form of human life one could imagine, are not cowardly - it does take a bit of courage to kill yourselves while killing others. However, I think that terrorists of all sorts are right up there with Nazis and Communists as far as respectability, decency, etc.

----------------------------------------
Just War theory provides different criteria regarding war, justification for fighting one, and just means of fighting them (pardon me for any mistakes - I am doing this from memory from sophomore philosophy).

Acording to Just War theory, you cannot start a war just because. You have to have either been attacked, or there must be a real threat to a state's security and/or sovreignity to attack first.
You must use similar force when fighting. In other words, a country is not justified in nuking/firebombing a major city if the enemy has only used small arms at a border skirmish.
You cannot target innocents, iincluding civilians. HOWEVER, civilians directly involved in the war effort (e.g. a worker in a factory that makes guns) are legitimate targets.
You cannot cause undue suffering. Shooting someone with a regular bullet is OK, but shooting someone with a bullet dipped in acid (don't ask how one would be able to do this) is not OK. Nor would shooting off some broken glass or rusty metal be considered OK.

Terrorism intentionally breaks the rules of Just War Theory.

So to answer your questions:

Blowing up a bus because you say it is full of Israelis. - Israeli civilains, including children and the elderly, as many of them are, is terrorism.

Blowing up a car because you say it has a "palestinian suspect" in it. - If the person is a known terrorist, this is targeting a combatant.

Bombing a restaurant because you think saddam is inside. - Depends on who else is in the restaurant. Killing innocents is terrorism, but killing Saddam's bodyguards and/or soldiers would not be.

Sending a plane into the WTC and pentagon. - Believe it or not, the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. However, by using a plane full of innocents to attack it, it becomes terrorism. The WTC attack is as bare-faced as terrorism gets.

Sending a cruise missle into a palace. - Again, there probably aren't any civilians in Saddam's palace, especially if they know Saddam is a target, so this is fine.

Dropping a nuclear bomb on a city. - This would have to be a last resort, unless you were nuked first.

Using chemical weapons on a city. - i don't think chemical weapons are justifiable unless used only on troops. Even then, the chemicals could be persistent, or travel by air to surronding cities, etc.

Is a "shock and awe" campaign terrorism? Is its purpose to terrorize into submission? - The US went to *extreme* measures to target only legitimate military targets. They were even careful to keep the power on - and power is the first thing to go if you are conducting a traditional bombing campaign.

 

[Bry]

I liked your post, jeff. The discussion of what constitues "cowardly" that has filled this thread seems a bit off, simply because the concept changes with the culture. If someone calls an act cowardly, effectively they are correct, and if someone else calls the same act brave, effectively they are also correct. The choice of "brave" or "cowardly" might say something about the person uttering the pronouncement, but it adds nothing to the act itself. There are no universal standards to appeal to. My personal feeling is that a suicide bomber is brave: they are willing to sacrifice their own life to fight against an otherwise unconfrontable situation. I also suspect that people who have here labeled the defining act of a suicide bomber are in some sense contradicting themselves: they would not be capable of commiting such an act simply because the idea of sacrificing their own life in such an irreversable way is anathama to their value for their own life. In other terms, they are afraid of such a sure way of accomplishing their own death. But I may be wrong about that, and I do not wish to elicit responses to this particular point. I am content simply to say that I do not believe myself capable of such an act, and the primary reason is fear of losing this life which I value.

The difficulty we face with suicide bombing is precisely that it is not an act of war, but the act of an individual. Unless a government can be directly linked to the act, the government in question bears no responsibility. If a government can be directly linked to the act in question, then it can be interpreted as an act of war. Neither can it be considered an act of war, the harboring of groups which encourage and fund these acts, though I may be mistaken on this point. It has not been demonstrated that the attack on the world trade center was an act of war, and the question of whether or not Afganistan and Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US is a difficult question. As far as I know, there are no standards accepted by the international community for determining what constitutes a real threat to a state's security. As such it is something which should be discussed at length, as we were doing in the thread on pre-emptive strikes. We ourselves may have some recourse to actions taken by our own government, as impeachment as provided by own laws, or removal of power in elections, but the rest of the world has no real recourse. Unfortunately, the United States is by far the strongest military force in the world, and they surrender none of their sovereignty to the UN, meaning they do not acknowledge the UNs or any others' authority to judge and if necessary penalize the actions of the United States. At the same time, the US, again by dent of it's raw military strength, does see itself as the correct and appropriate determiner of what may or may not be considered appropriate action on the part of any foreign power. That is to say, if the US believes a foreign power to be "wrong", the US believes that it is justified in castigating that foreign power by any means the US sees fit, without consulting the UN or any other community of nations. Therefore, essentially, whatever we do as a country is essentially justified, by virtue of our military strength. It occurs to me that this situation is not desirable for the world, but the world has demonstrated itself to be incapable of resolving to act in unison against the fundamental disrespect for the international community that the US has shown. The UN is thus doubly ineffective because neither can they influence the actions of the US, nor can they act in unison to castigate the US for their actions. As such, the UN's only function is as a reliable place to have discussions which go nowhere and make accusations which are not enforcable, apart from its humanitarian missions. The US would certainly suffer if the world community placed an embargo on the US, for example, but they cannot accord to take such measures: there are always some countries that look to benefit from the small lipservice they pay to our strength.

This is what is meant by the state of nature: there is no international arbitration, therefore the sufficient and necessary justification of any action on the international level is the military force to prevent others from presenting themselves in contra. Might, effectively, makes right. Interestingly, the only other country immune to the machinations of the US is North Korea, by virtue of their posession of nuclear arms which prevents the US from taking decisive action, and their insusceptibility to trade embargoes due to their self-sufficiency and lack of international trade. They are the thorn in the side of our total domination, and they provide a valuable model to all other states in the world. It is sufficiently clear that any country wishing to defy the policies of the US government and economic expansion and exploitation of markets, must on the one hand posess deployable nuclear devices and on the other hand be so self sufficient as not to succumb to the economic pressure the US brings to bear on all who oppose them.

The primary alternative resistance is that of what we are so fond of calling terrorism. Here again, as with "coward", the way you define "terrorism" depends on what side of the conflict you find yourself. We certainly didn't refer to bin Laden and the Afghan resistance to Soviet rule as "terrorist". It was only when they turned their attention to the global hegemony of Capitalism that they became terrorists. Their methods, of course, were always the same, and they perfected their methods under the tutelage and watchful eye of the CIA. But I have recently come to the realization that this discussion is not an irrelevant turn of semantics, but rather it is a matter of utmost importance. As an example, Spain was willing to support the US in their war in exchange for, among other things, the US's classification of ETA (the Basque separatist movement) as an international terrorist organization. This allowed Spain to take actions against ETA on an international level which were not previously possible. Not only have international accounts been frozen, but news papers have been shut down and their editors imprisoned: the Spanish government has been able, thanks to the sponsorship of the US, to severely limit the freedoms of speech in their country without risk of an international reaction, just as the US has done in their own country by passing the internationally notorious "Patriot" Act. As you can see, might not only makes right, it provides the sufficient and necessary authority to define words like "terrorist". No matter how much we might argue against the standard use of the word "terrorist" by the US government and media, "terrorist" effectively means any action which defies the global hegemony of the US sponsored Capitalism, as indeed became clear when the US government, in reaction to massive wide spread international protests against the invasion of Iraq, stated simply that those demonstrators are supporters of terrorists, as "old Europe" is now considered to be in support of terrorists (and for that crime, we will no longer eat French fries, and the threat of embargoes were and continue to be considered). I too am a terrorist, or the supporter of terrorists: all the guilt but none of the glory. I suppose my only recourse is to become accostomed to my new name and perhaps even to wear it with pride. If the governments of the world will not do what they must to stop this empire of "right", it is our obligation to do what we may, through boycott, constant protest, and other equally violent expressions of our new found identity as terrorists.

 

[jimnyc]

Good piece of writing there, Bry!

I agree with what you said about use of the word cowardly. I've done a bit of reading myself this afternoon, and I can see what you mean. Some see them as hero's and others as cowards. I can see where being raised in that way of life that such an act will bring you martyrdom. I won't argue that because just as you said "there are no universal standards to appeal to".

I guess my point was the actual act of using yourself and aiming, for the most part, directly at citizens.

Running full speed into US military barracks with dynamite strapped to your belly is in my opinion stupid, but it does take a huge set of balls! I guess either way you're dead. Sitting on a bus full of innocent civilians and detonating yourself really serves no purpose other than to kill innocent people and strike fear in others - and in my opinion is a cowardly act.

I don't full agree with everything else you wrote, but I will say it was good reading! (just not enough time to debate in that length right now)