In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Terrorists=Cowards?

jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
Ted Turner just got in hot water for calling the Terrorists who crashed into our buildings brave. It got me thinking. They were insane, sadistic, misguided A-holes, but cowards? I don't think so. The act WAS surely cowardly, but they were willing to give their lives to accomplish their goal. I can't admire them for what they did, but I don't think I can call the actual executors cowards. The leadership who ordered and planned the attacks, surely were cowards, but the terrorists? I'm starting to think they were gutsy... if utterly insane.I suppose I'll catch all sorts of FLAK (short for Fliegerabwehrkannonen I believe) for this one.
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • jdb123jdb123 Member Posts: 471 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    cowards-maybe, maybe not. burning in hell-yeap!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    They were cowards in the sense that they werent willing to fight the armed soldiers of the US.They claimed to hate our military and government so much, but did they attack an Army base or an FBI building? Hell no! They chose to terrorize and murder innocent civilians instead because they knew they couldnt fight back.Which is one of the reasons the passengers on the flight that crashed in Penn. were so courageous. I just wish they had brought them back alive.Death is no big deal to these animals, but being crammed in a cage and poked with sticks might make them start to hate their lives. Which is a good thing.Thats why they are unlawful combatants and will get 3 hots and a cot and no lawyer or trial in Guantanamo for a long time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I say they were cowards. First, some of them may not have known they had one-way tickets. Even if they did, they believed they were in line for 72 virgins and whatever else in Paradise after they died killing infidels. They attacked the softest targets with maximum civilian casualties they could find. I call that taking the easy way out.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jdb123jdb123 Member Posts: 471 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    once again i will backtrack and say yes those devils where cowards. and that make me think this- new topic
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    Bullzeye, I can agree with that. So did dropping the A-bomb make the U.S. cowardly, going after the big civilian target instead of tackling the invasion? Remember, for all the blood in the pacific, we never did tie in to the main body of the Jap army, still at home and in China. No, of course we weren't cowards. It is good stratetgy to hit the enemy where they don't expect it, unannounced, in the softest area possible. Deplorable? Yes. But fightin fair don't win battles.
    "...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ADfreeADfree Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well Jonk there were some legit targets that were destroyed by The Bomb, but more importantly the Japanese were the first to start using WMD. They were doing such revolting things as handing out anthrax-laced candy to children in China.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'll go with Bullzeye on this one. The A-bomb? We didn't hide in caves after doing it, and it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives which would have been lost with a conventional invasion of an enemy who would never have surrendered in a conventional scenario. It also saved countless lives which would have happened during the many years of the "Cold War", by putting the commie scum in the Soviet Union on notice.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Cowards for using the A-bomb??? Never heard that one before. It was humane to use it, saving hundreds of thousands of American lives and MILLIONS of Japanese.
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The apologists can wail all they want, but the use of the Atomic bomb was without doubt the kindest thing the Allies could have done. If the Allies had conducted a conventional war against the Japanese homeland, the fanaticism of their culture would have resulted in their eradication as a people. And I don't remember the projected Allied casualty figures for sure, but I believe it was into seven figures. The bombs were horrible, yes. Cowardly, no. And I would submit that in the long term it was humane. And if we're going to play 'what if' . . . . What if we had concluded the fight with conventional weapons alone? Then in 1950, the US and Stalin both have atomic bombs but the world doesn't know about them, doesn't have an instinctive aversion to their use . . . and the North Koreans come swarming over the border . . . . Conceivably, the deaths of the people in Hiroshima & Nagasaki may well have altered world history - and world tragedy - far beyond the Japanese homeland. Like the millions who died from conventional weapons, the deaths of these people was not, IMO, in vain.My, but we are getting philosophical and historical these days.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.