I regularly hear people talk about terrorist attacks, suicide bombing, and the like as "cowardly." Why? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life.

Flying a plane into a building knowing full well that you're about to die for an ultimate cause is many things. Irrational? Certainly. Immoral? Most likely. Cowardly? Definitely not. In fact, it's the antithesis of a cowardly act. It takes profound courage and an enormous lack of sense to do something like this.

Is there any reason at all such acts should be considered "cowardly" ?

I think people who refer to them as such are confusing their terms. If you want to talk about the immorality of such acts, that's a different matter completely. But calling terrorists and suicide bombers "cowards" is ridiculous and adds confusion to what bravery is.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on this one.

I can see where you may argue that suicide takes conviction and courage to actually go through with it.

However, it IS one of the most cowardice acts. As in doing so, you don't have to face the consequences of your actions. You no longer have to face another day. And you leave those in your wake, having to deal with your actions and yet be unanswered.

Like all forms of suicide, it is about NOT having to face those that you impact. It is about NOT having to answer to them. It is about being unaccountable for those that you affect. It IS about weakness and, in a way, running away from having to deal with the reality that you are attempting to create by your action. A reality that others must deal with and you choosing not to.

The suiciders on 9/11 or those of any other mission that end up killing themselves AND others, are not just disrupting their lives and their loved one's or their friends and not also just those that they murder through their act, but also multiplied by those that loved and cared for the ones murdered. And then throw politics on top of all that. Now, is it courageous to not have to answer for what you do? The impact that you make?

I disagree.

Killing unsuspecting innocent people is the epitome of cowardice. Just because someone is willing to die in the commission of a murder doesn't change that fact.

I doubt anyone thinks the Columbine killers had "courage"

Ok, points well taken guys.

Just to continue the discussion, though,


Dying is a pretty serious consequence in my mind.


So is all suicide cowardly then? Put a different way, take the example of the Vietnam War. Buddhist monks regularly used to light themselves on fire in a protest-suicide of the violence of the war on busy Saigon streets. Would you also consider this cowardice?


I can get on board with this concept, but it would mean redefining courage and cowardice in many examples of our society--we would have to start considering many events "cowardly" under this standard that people regularly consider "brave." For instance, British pilots who flew combat runs over Germany in the second world war would have to be considered cowards because that is exactly what they did--they killed unsuspecting "innocent" people. I think most people would have a problem with that classification.

It's the same problem with many right-wing thinkers today classifying "terrorism" as the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants. But if THAT is true, many acts that they do NOT consider terrorism would have to be construed as such--the nuclear attacks on Japan, the Dresden bombings, and the Shock and Awe campaign come to mind. I personally don't have a problem calling those things terrorism, but many people do.

It's a matter of consistency.

Suicide killing is cowardly and selfish. It robs those that you've offended any opportunity for retribution. It's message is one that says, "Here, deal with this shit I do to you and there's nothing you can do to me 'cause I take myself out of the equation." Sure, dying is a pretty serious a consequence to a suicide murder. but not as serious of a consequence IF you were around to atone for the murder you committed. That, in itself, makes it a selfish act and a act of cowardice.

And about the monks that set themselves on fire in protest.
Selfish yet effective.

I'll buy the selfish, but I still hesitate to call it cowardly, because doing so smacks too much of relativism. It's cowardly for suicide bombers not to face their victims, but not cowardly to bomb cities and risk dying in the process... I just don't see it.

Suicide it's self is cowardly.

Brave, would be for these people to have done what they did, and lived, so they could see every family memember of each victim, and look them in the eye and then say they were righteous.

THAT would have been brave. To die, doesn't take that much courage.

Even braver, far more brave, would have been to take Gandhi's lead, and find peace through peaceful means. Imagine, actually working with and through humility, to find peace, and to keep doing it even when it seems utterly impossible.

That's courage!

If a tactic is effective, it doesn't matter what you call it. The act in and of itself cannot hold human qualities, therefor to characterize the act as cowardly is to charactarize its perpetrators as cowards. To willingly go to ones' death for a cause one believes in is anything but the act of a coward. To characterize our enemies as cowards is simply way to claim that we are brave by comparison. If our enemies are craven cowards, and we are brave, then we must be righteous and deserving of victory, no matter any other circumstance. Like their having legitimate outrage at our arrogant and blatantly illegal behavior toward them. Doesn't matter, if they are cowards. Cowards are always the villains. Only heros can be brave. It is, in short, bullshit. Propoganda. Playground name-calling.

It's bravery to face an enemy in battle, knowing that you might get killed, yet not yielding to that fear and instead choosing to face it.

It's cowardice to choose not to face your enemy, knowing that you might live, so instead you take your life so as to not have to face the enemy's wrath.

I remember those crushing images from my childhood, when they actually allowed such scenes to be on the nightly news. They were very moral beings , in my opinion, willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause to fight for other peoples lives. I think it was self-sacrifice.

It makes me realize how little knowledge we have of war on our own soil. We were attacked on 9/11/2001 , and it lasted ONE DAY. We do not know how we or are clergy, for that matter, would behave if we were invaded and occupied for a length of time.

They are saying on Chris Matthews right now that Osama bin Laden did not like us because of our troops in HIS country of Saudi Arabia.

It seems to me that people, any people in any land, simply do NOT like to be invaded or occupied. It is human nature to not like to be controlled by outsiders on your own turf!

Trying to view the act thru western eyes and frames of reference doesn't work. Sunnis are a little different, but Shias view it as an act of martyrdom and faith, not courage. It matters little what we think it is, or why they do it.

It matters little to THEM, what we think.
It matters very much to us, what we think.



Suicide is cowardly. And as always, we can find examples where even this absolute is not always true.



Which is more brave?

The Arab mother that spends her whole life doing her best under extremely difficult situations, to take care of and provide for her children on a day to day basis?

Or the Arab suicide bomber that blows him self to pieces in a millisecond?




Sorry, but for me the answer is so blatant as to be stupid and silly.
And yes, this is MY values that are based on WESTERN values. And if the Arabs don't see it this way,
again, I'm sorry, but fuck um! They're simply wrong!

My values can not and will never condone the taking of innocent life, especially through marterdom.
And if THIS is why the Islamists and the West are at war, I want no part of it.


I would much rather put the bombs and the guns away, back into thier respective closets, and have us all sit at one huge table and argue with each other for a decade or two.

QUOTE

All we are saying, Is Give Peace A Chance........
Lennon

I think in some cases suicide is not cowardly. Take for instance a solider who holds the line, taking fire and getting hit, so fellow soldiers can find cover. I think we even have medals for such acts. He is willingly allowing someone to end his life, so that they would waste the time to do so. That falls into the realm of suicide.

It is all about perception. To some my Heros are Villians and to others they are Demons so vile, they wish for me to die that I even consider them to be my Heros.



Also, on a side note, in most interpretations of Islam, to strike at a foe who is unaware or unarmed is a sin. It is a minor sin, save to warriors who take it seriously. This custom has lost favor with those that live in more modern terms of lifestyle.

I agree whole-heartedly with that, of course. That is murder, not just suicide.

I disagree with that premise, Vern, for the reason I stated earlier. I don't think Americans have a point of reference at all. We don't have any clue how we would react if we were invaded and occupied, because we have never been invaded and occupied! We've been attacked twice> "Pearl Harbor" and "9/11- the NEW Pearl Harbor" , and in neither case were we invaded and occupied.

In the case of U.S troops in Saudi Arabia - that was NOT an "occupation" - our U.S troops were there with the full approval of the Saudi government. The same way we currently have troops in South Korea & Germany - does anyone say that we're "occupying" those two countries? If bin Laden had a problem with U.S tropps in Saudi, then his problem was with the Saudi government. Not the U.S.

Originally, Osama's beef WAS with the Saudi's, more than the US.
I became an enemy of the government of his home country long before he was an enemy of the US.


Perspective between the East and West are by nature going to be different.
Hell, in this country the perspective between north and south aren't even always the same, and we speak the same language!

True enough. But the other side of the coin is that Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative and repressive of governments, and we never have qualms with doing business with these folks, didn't Bush actually kiss one of these fuckers on a visit?

They perfectly illustrate the incredible hypocrisy of our government in doing one thing, saying another. We invade Iraq in order to bring Democracy at gunpoint yet are in bed with the Saudi's who export terrorism, and lastly we link 9/11 to Iraq when 15 of the 19 hijackers that killed themselves by displaying ______ were Saudi.

It's classic propaganda that contains so many falsehoods as to leave many confused, which is the way our government wants it.

That's not the "other side of the coin" - it's a completely different issue. The U.S is not responsible for the domestic politics of Saudi Arabia any more than we're responsible for the internal politics of Germany. The U.S was not "occupying" Saudi Arabia.

Basically my response was that a non Muslim lacks the necessary understanding of why they are willing to use this as a tactic. I'm no expert on Islam but I have a basic understanding of the Shia view of martyrdom. If memory serves me correctly, it has to do with the prophet's grandson Ali and the way he perished. But for me to try and pass judgement as to whether the act is cowardly or not can be nothing but a personal opinion. That's why I commented that no matter what we collectively or individually conclude, whether it is cowardly or not, matters little, its just an opinion, and for me, would be an opinion without enough facts to be meaningful. While occupation may have quite a bit to with the frequency of these attacks, I'm not sure its the reason for the methodology. The point of reference for a martyr to aquire reverence from his family and neighbors for commiting the act is something mostly foriegn to the western mindset.

I dont accept that it's a completely different argument.
Can we agree on the statement that it's an incredibly complicated and convoluted argument?



No one is saying the US is responsible for the internal situation in Saudi Arabia.
But on the other hand, no one can deny how much the US presance in Saudi Arabia has an effect on the internal workings of the Saudi government, and how this must surely illustrate the familiar relationship between the Bushites and the Saudi Royal Family. (which controls it's country through sheer force, and NOT the will of the people)

What are we discussing here ?

My original post in this thread was a response to yankhadenufs who wrote:

"They are saying on Chris Matthews right now that Osama bin Laden did not like us because of our troops in HIS country of Saudi Arabia - It seems to me that people, any people in any land, simply do NOT like to be invaded or occupied. It is human nature to not like to be controlled by outsiders on your own turf"

I agree, noone likes to be occupied by a foreign military force. Yankhadenuf's post implied that the U.S was occupying Saudi Arabia. Which it was not.

The U.S had troops in Saudi all through the 1990's (Clinton's watch) - Those troops were REMOVED from Saudi in 2003 (Bush's watch) - What are your thoughts on the Clintonista's "familiar relationship" with House of Saud? Do you hold the Bush administration to a different standard?

I was replying to the more immediate post and not to the thread in general.
Granted, this is how threads drift. But sometimes it also uncovers the greater truth.

Wait a moment here. Please explain to me why I now see red flags popping up?


Edit to add....


I for one said nothing about time frame or adminsitrations.
Why do you feel compelled to go here, in this manner?

No, it was not "occupying" Saudi Arabia, but it did have lots of troops at a huge airbase in that country, which I believe have just recently been moved out of this country, in essence, the mastermind of 9/11 has seen U.S. troops leave S.A.

We (by "we" I mean our President and the President's father) have a cozy relationship with the country that spawned 9/11. We flew over 100 of them out of the country to escape the scrutiny their relationship to the Bush regime would bring with it.

And the U.S. has alot of influence on Saudi politics. Alot more than anyone probably knows.

A continuation of Daddy Bush's policy, which may have ebbed a bit under Clinton but positively flows under Dumbya.

I believe equally the Saudi government has a rather large influence over US policy.

Question. How does this relationship interact with the US - Israeli Zionist connection?

Not sure what you mean by "red flags" ?

In your previous post you wrote:

"No one is saying the US is responsible for the internal situation in Saudi Arabia.
But on the other hand, no one can deny how much the US presance in Saudi Arabia has an effect on the internal workings of the Saudi government, and how this must surely illustrate the familiar relationship between the Bushites and the Saudi Royal Family. (which controls it's country through sheer force, and NOT the will of the people)"

Your usage of present-tense phrases (that I italicized) and reference to the Bush administration indicate that you believe the U.S currently has a presence and an influence in the domestic politics of Saudi Arabia. Bush took office in 2001 and U.S troops were REMOVED from Saudi two years later in 2003. It would seem to me that if you had a problem with ANY administration it would be the one that had U.S troops there the longest - which would be the Clinton administration, yet you went out of your way to not-so-subtly indict Bush. If you disagree with the presence of U.S troops in Saudi Arabia, then I would imagine that you favor Bush's decision to remove the troops. No ?

Again, the U.S troops that were stationed in Saudi Arabia were there with the FULL APPROVAL of the Saudi government. I'm not the one that used the term "occupy" - that was yankhadenuf.

Do you have a source for knowing the U.S influence on Saudi politics? Or is it just speculation?

My referance to the Bushites refers more to his daddy than to The Bumbler in Chief.
And as we recall, that was quite a bit before the time of the "Clintonista's"

The fact is, the Clintons have never hosted the Saudi Royal Family at their personal residence, while the Bush family has on many occasions! This to me, over an above the military base on Saudi soil, indicated a pretty cosey relationship.


The red flags come from your friendly terminalogy for the Bushists, and out right defense of them,
while at the same time through the same terminalogy villifying the Clintons.

This action of yours was NOT predicated by anything anyone had posted, but rather, came entitirely from you. I had not indiacted any sort of time line or referance to administrations, even though I DID refer to the friendly relationship between the Bush family and the Royal family.

THIS is the red flags I refer too!

I'm the last person to defend the Saudi Royal Family, but, they are considered a U.S ally and have been so for several generations - why would hosting them at the White House or your private residence make a difference? (besides Clinton didn't have a "private residence" when he was President)

Not sure what your talking about when you say my "friendly terminology" when refering to Bush or how I "villify" the Clinton's - I did no such thing. I've just stated facts. And why would that constitute "red flags" anyway?

FWIW - I don't care for either the Bush's or the Clinton's

I tell you what. When you fiugure it out, we'll discuss it again.

I have made no accusations, only noted that a few things seem, curious.




By the way. The term "Clintonista's" is not a fact. It's riddled with conjecture. Negative conjecture.
This is why I highlighted that word in my reply for you to see.

No, but it isnt hard to connect the dots. Start here.

http://www.carlyle.com/eng/company/index.html

I don't consider the term "Clintonista" to be "riddled with conjecture" let alone "negative conjecture" - perhaps that's your own paranoia getting the best of you. Why are you so defensive of the Clinton's ?

I realise you don't. That's a part of why, as you youself said, you don't get it!


You can't turn the question around. This wasn't about MY statement.
BTW. I have a 17 year old. You'll have to do better than he does.

Wow talk about a thread drift.

Anyway, there is some key points many of you are missing here.

First, American has ben occupied and our White House has evn been burned down to the ground. We have fought many wars on what is currently American Soil.

Second, bin Laden was not upset over troops "occuping" S. Arabia, he was upset that American choose to station non-muslim troops within the city of Mecca/Makah, which is against Islamic Law. What further put salt in the wound was the fact we had enoguh muslim troops to easy accommodate the request, but the Crown rules could care less about Islamic Law and more about shinny coin, which made bin Laden attack his home land and America.

We would rather "save" money then be respectful and that is what this whole damn war is about, America being disrespectful.

So, what happened to the coward debate?

Wikipedia

Formation of al-Qaeda

Osama bin Laden in Caliphate robes delivering the Jihad Against Zionists and Crusaders fatwaBy 1988, bin Laden had split from the MAK because of strategic differences. While Azzam and his MAK organization acted as support for the Afghan fighters and provided relief to refugees and injured, bin Laden wanted a more military role in which the Arab fighters would not only be trained and equipped by the organization but also be commanded on the battlefield by Arabic. One of the main leading point to the split and the creation of al-Qaeda was the insistence of Azzam that Arab fighters be integrated among the afghan fighting groups instead of forming their separate fighting force. [18]

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government. Bin Laden publicly denounced his government's dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in the country. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War upset Muslims because the Saudi government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War cease-fire agreement left Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq, the ongoing presence of long-term bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi rulers' perceived legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the government to expel him to Sudan in 1991. Bin Laden was accepted in Sudan by the ruling National Islamic Front (NIF), which may have hoped he could aid them through his wealth and construction company.

Assisted by donations funneled through business and charitable fronts such as Benevolence International, established by his brother-in-law, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden established a new base for mujahideen operations in Khartoum, Sudan to disseminate Islamist philosophy and recruit operatives in Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. Bin Laden also invested in business ventures, such as al-Hajira, a construction company that built roads throughout Sudan, and Wadi al-Aqiq, an agricultural corporation that farmed hundreds of thousands of acres of sorghum, gum Arabic, sesame and sunflowers in Sudan's central Gezira province. Bin Laden's operations in Sudan were protected by the powerful Sudanese NIF government figure Hassan al Turabi. While in Sudan, bin Laden married one of Turabi's nieces.

And?

Nothing more than a clarification

Fair Enough.

So what happened to all the talk about cowards?

I believe the discussion at hand relates to the original question, even if it has been stretched somewhat.