Oceania At Last, a view I can agree with

Hi SM could you check your spelling pls

 

Yeah hi, if you mean the typo with the missing "e" I'm gonna leave it, unless someone finds it offensive, then Stinrab can replace that word with Pagan, or whatever he feels like at the time.

 

SM---Deep breath ok. Just remember civvy people don't always understand. And this is a public board, with luck you will get your chance to have the final say, but you will not win here.

I'm not starting in on the debate but a professional knows when to move on, let it rest.

 

Yes I do know when to move on, when he removes the word Muslim from my posts.
he's already admitted he was wrong 3 times, but they're still there.

 

Settle down, SM. It's just a board for cryin' out loud. Ok, this is what I changed in those posts:

"Who cut a throat? I don't remember that being mentioned in this attack, if you are referring to moslems in general, the that sort of thing goes on in the western world too"

-- nothing offensive there

"Ok, they are muslim nutters, but the attack was not cowardly, they struck in a professional manner."

-- makes it look like you were referring to the extremist muslims (which I presume you were), without the offensive words of course.


Now, explain how my alterations have somehow made it look like you are referring to all muslims in general? It seems to me like I've simply just erased the offending word and adjusted the sentence to what you meant.

 

Again, you are using presumption to dictate to me and others what I meant,
and whatever the case, you have altered my words and made them into something that I did not post.
Now stop being antagonistic and just asterisk out those words will you?

 

What then, did you mean to say?

 

For the millionth time. It was in reference to the extremists, the ones that did the attack, the ones who organised, plotted and cheered the results.
How many times are you going to come in here looking for another way to bait me without actually doing as I request?

 

jebus stinrab please quit arguing and just change it as amusing as this is you repeating yourself is tiring. okay its not that hard to change it is it?

 

Bugger Piggles.. you beat me to it..

 

It's like watch 2 Bulls at a gate(hows that for aussie lingo), both are stamping feet and it's not going anywhere.

For the sake of good manners gentlemen take it someplace else, I would have thought that both of you, given the positions you have would have made it less public by now.

If you guys can't show common sense, how can you expect us to.

Move along Move along

 

Mutley, while you're view is valid, I now have posts in my name being derogotary towards an entire religion, when you and I know that it was meant to be directed to those involved.
All I ask is that those words he inserted into my posts are removed, and that someone in his position show a little more nouse in future.

 

Ozhaggis, could you please explain your reasoning on how these people are cowards, cause I don't get it.

And Stinrab, unless it is beyond your comprehension, I think everyone involved would appreciate it if you would just replace the 'offensive words' with asterix's.

 

There's nothing to see here. Move along.

In an attempt to answer you Aztec...
I think that wartime sacrifices are heroic but I don't believe that attacks against civilians are brave in any situation, regardless of whether it's terrorists or US soldiers doing the attacking. I'll accept the attack on the pentagon as being a brave attack since that was a military target.
The trade centres were different in my opinion. Sure the attacks were well planned & excecuted and sure they were willing to die to do it, but to me they were no braver than a person who kills several people in a shooting rampage and then shoots themself.
That's why I would consider their attack cowardly despite how much I might admire the expertise and flawlessness of the attack.

 

Ok, I would agree that their actions were certainly not heroic, but I wouldn't call them cowardly either.
Just.... Determined.

 

Asteriks in

SM and I will continue this debate in PMs, in order to stop halting the flow of this thread

 

Okay Sith Stinrab happy now?
Now on with the discussion:
Determined is an interesting way to put it but probably the most accurate term so far. Cowardice is not something that can applied in this situation not with the technology that is at our disposal. By saying that its an act of cowardice are you saying that we should go back to hand to hand combat? Also it sounds like your saying dropping bombs on cities is an act of cowardice too, isnt this what part of the act from the americans will involve? Think about it.

 

Well, bombing Afghanistan as a whole wouldn't do much except kill a lot of innocentr ppl seeing as the country's mostly rubble anyway.
However, I do believe that not many more Afgan citizens will be able to flee the Taliban area, so that would be a good place to start bombing, then send in ground troops to clear the area physically of any remaining hostile forces.
Unfortunately, there are reports of fleeing Afgans being forcibly recruited into that army, I'm sorry to say those men are probably already victims of a war yet to happen.

 

I wish humanity never came into being

 

It doesn't make any difference to me whether it's bombing, had-to-hand combat or bullets. I consider it cowardly when the targets are innocent civilians. So in answer to one of the comments, if the US are dropping bombs on civilians then yes I would also consider that to be just as bad. If a few civilians are taken out by accident while they're going for a clearly military target then I think it's different. Those terrorists didn't seem to be interested in anything other than killing as many innocent people as possible. That's why I think what they did was so bad. The method used has little to do with how I see it.
Here's another hypothetical example of what I mean. Suppose a guy who's trained hard in martial arts gets attacked by 4 guys and beats them all up. I would consider that to be brave and justified. He had a good reason to fight and did it well.
If that same guy picked 4 guys who were minding their own business on the street and beat the snot out of them for no reason other than feed his ego or make others feel scared of him, then I would consider that to be cowardly. I think the second situation is more akin what what the terrorist have done.
As SM has pointed out, they succeded in getting the western world running scared but I think the way they did it was cowardly. They struck at people who basically have nothing to do with their gripe against the US (other than the fact that they hapenned to be in the US). Sure the people who did it were dedicated and were probably proud to follow orders to the death, but I think the ones who gave those orders are the real cowardly ones. I guess that's more what others & I mean when we say it was a cowardly attack.

 

Determined,
Viscious,
Deadly,
Evil,

All words that could be used to describe their actions,
I'm sorry, but to call it cowardly is not only innaccurate, but seems to place the attack at a level below which we should retaliate at.
I say once again, I'm not saying they are heroic, very far from it.
But I cannot see how these men could be called cowards, that denotes an attack not worth responding too.

 

I guess I think of the people that organised and carried out these attacks as cowards because they have not stood up and said
"we did this and this is why we did it". To not stand up and admit it now, is condemning a lot of their countrymen to death, and their country or countries to many more years of turmoil and war. I don't think calling them cowards really lessens how we see the crime or changes how we think we should respond. I actually think these peopple should die too, but we just need to know who they are first.

 

I agree to say you're going to do it and then deny it was you is an act of cowardice, And that in your view, and mine too btw, it does not lessen the fact that this is an act demanding a response, It's just that the original point of this thread was to discuss the view point that Ummyep posted a link to saying that by calling them cowards insinuated that it was a tragedy to move on from, rather than an attack requiring a response in a manner that would serve as a reminder that the war of terrorism should be brought to the doorstep of those who would cause this manner of terror in the world.
And I agree that it is of the utmost importance to be certain of who the attack should be levelled at.
The US has announced they have secret CIA files proving that Bin Laden was responsible for it.
Whether or not this is true, or the President is desperately seeking a scape goat to appease the masses, or the information is secret because it may disclose that someone in the US government knew something like this was going to happen is something we'll never realy know for sure.
But I agree with Bush's statement that he would not discern between terrorists, and those that protect them.
Unfortunately, inocent people will die anyway, as they already have done.

 

I use the term coward because they, armed and trained soldiers, attacked and killed unarmed, untrained, unsuspecting civilians.


Yes, you'll argue that America did the same to their country (and a few others). I don't dispute that. I don't care. Call them both cowards.

If a man sneaks up behind someone and shoots them in the back without them even knowing he is there, is that brave?

If he then denies he even shot them, is that braver still?

If an armed man kills an unarmed woman, is he the bravest of them all?


I'm not condemning them for attacking America. I don't care about their motives. It's their methods I condemn.

Terrorism, of any kind, is cowardice.

And a "man" who kills a woman in cold blood is the worst kind of coward and doesn't deserve to be called a man.


Is that clear enough Aztec?


EDIT: Just so you know, you asked for my position, I gave it to you, but I'm leaving it there - I promised someone I won't get into an argument about this, so if you want to dispute it, go ahead, but I'm out of this thread.

As Socrates said: You will do what you have to do, and I will do what I have to do.

And never the twain shall meet. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours - so there it ends.

 

Now theres food for thought keep it rollin' guys and gals