terrorists are cowards!

why are they cowards you might ask? im here to tell you. what kind of whimp walks over to somebody, while wearing a thick jacket of explosives and blows up with out notice? only a coward! who ever thought of the stupid idea of blowing yourself up to kill the enemy anyway? the god of cowards?

a real fighter is a soilder, grabs a gun and fights like a man, only cowards secretly hide explosives and blow themselves up. what a great idea! lets everybody strap on some explosives and start blowing ourselves up!

i hope im not the only one who agrees terrorists are cowards. whats your say?

Well, I'd disagree. Fanatic and psychotic perhaps, but not cowards. A coward would leave a bomb and timer to go off in a crowded civilian area. Nut job, yes. Not coward.

But you've obviously put a lot of thought into this, so don't let me discourage you.

Well,

Although I agree with your sentiment 100%, this post is terrible! At least for this forum anyways.

All opinion and speculation with no quotable facts or substantiation. I would even go as far as to say its a blatant attempt at raising as much inflammatory debate as possible.

Hey, I like ATS points too (why I don’t know), but you need to earn them mate...

If you want to PHARM, go someplace else.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
why are they cowards you might ask? im here to tell you. what kind of whimp walks over to somebody, while wearing a thick jacket of explosives and blows up with out notice? only a coward! who ever thought of the stupid idea of blowing yourself up to kill the enemy anyway? the god of cowards?

a real fighter is a soilder, grabs a gun and fights like a man, only cowards secretly hide explosives and blow themselves up. what a great idea! lets everybody strap on some explosives and start blowing ourselves up!

i hope im not the only one who agrees terrorists are cowards. whats your say?

Firstly, I would ask that you define what YOU think a terrorist is, just so we know how seriously to take you.

Secondly, I would remind you of the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", and that while I personally see no logic in suicide bombing, I can understand some of the causes behind groups who employ such a tactic.

And finally, as I have stated before, many people consider firing missles from many hundreds of miles away cowardly. It's war. Cowardice has little to do with the tactics, its just both sides fighting as they know how to, or as they can with what they have.

Oh, and one more point actually... I find it amusing that the term terrorist these days seems to automatically imply suicide bombers. Er, I don't recall the IRA or ETA using suicide bombers, yet they were terrorists in the eyes of many.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Well,

Although I agree with your sentiment 100%, this post is terrible! At least for this forum anyways.

All opinion and speculation with no quotable facts or substantiation. I would even go as far as to say its a blatant attempt at raising as much inflammatory debate as possible.

Hey, I like ATS points too (why I don’t know), but you need to earn them mate...

If you want to PHARM, go someplace else.

ok sorry if its in the wrong place but alot of people go to war on terrorism so if i post it here alot more people would see it and hopefully reply to it i would think.

Originally posted by Daystar
Firstly, I would ask that you define what YOU think a terrorist is, just so we know how seriously to take you.

Secondly, I would remind you of the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", and that while I personally see no logic in suicide bombing, I can understand some of the causes behind groups who employ such a tactic.

And finally, as I have stated before, many people consider firing missles from many hundreds of miles away cowardly. It's war. Cowardice has little to do with the tactics, its just both sides fighting as they know how to, or as they can with what they have.

Oh, and one more point actually... I find it amusing that the term terrorist these days seems to automatically imply suicide bombers. Er, I don't recall the IRA or ETA using suicide bombers, yet they were terrorists in the eyes of many.

the terrorists im talking about are the ones in iraq driving around in rigged cars waiting for the right time to explode. the ones with bombs strapped on to them who walk into crowds and explode also fit into my coward category.

do you think thats fair fighting? thats how a coward fights. they get you but you cant get them. with war jets gunners from the gound can see the threat and attempt to stop it.

I understand the thought...

But by your definition then, so are most military efforts in the modern age. Snipers would be cowards, firing missles from ships or by hand would be cowardice, using planes and tanks would be the act of cowards, etc. Only the M-60 firing, bare-chested Rambo classifies as being not a coward by your definition and real military action just doesn't work that way.

It really is just a semantics game. In reality, "kill thine enemy before he kills you" is the only rule. It's the classification of who is an enemy that differs. In our society it's armed militants and in their society it's all of us (or all non-Muslims or infidels, I suppose).

So, we launch missle strikes on suspected cave bunkers (an act of cowardice to them that we call being carful with our assets) and they send in people with bombs strapped to them (that we call cowardly, but they think it's the ultimate bravery to a cause.)

The Russians did the same with dogs during WWII for use against Nazi tanks when they had no other choice and no way to stop the tanks.

I am not condoning the actions, but I honestly don't think it's as cut-and-dry as just labeling them cowards.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
do you think thats fair fighting? thats how a coward fights. they get you but you cant get them. with war jets gunners from the gound can see the threat and attempt to stop it.

BTW...there is no "fair fight." Let's be real on that.

Is a jet fighter or helicopter using rockets shooting people with AK-47's in the open desert "fair?"


And to top it off you say "they get you but you cant get them." I bet they say that about our modern "fire-and-forget" military. I think your logic on this is a bit one-sided.

Just playing devil's advocate here....

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
the terrorists im talking about are the ones in iraq driving around in rigged cars waiting for the right time to explode. the ones with bombs strapped on to them who walk into crowds and explode also fit into my coward category.

do you think thats fair fighting? thats how a coward fights. they get you but you cant get them. with war jets gunners from the gound can see the threat and attempt to stop it.

Well, I don't really need to answer that because I think you have demonstrated little understanding of what war is about. As Zedd has said, war is not like Rambo. And as I have said, both sides use what they can and how they can.

Btw... watch the movie Red Dawn... no doubt if that had actually happened, the Wolverines would have been dubbed terrorists by the Soviets, but as heroes to the Americans. Terrorism is nowdays a point of view, just as much as it is an act. Unless of course, you are a sadistic psychopath ala Castor Troy in Face/Off.

I can't believe that someone thinks terrorists are cowards. Cowards are people that are too lazy to get involved in their life and the affairs of state.

Americas founding fathers were called terrorists and cowards because they fought a guerilla style war.

muslims have no tanks, missles and support systwm. those dudes don't get food and water dropped to them. they don't get choppered to a medevac unit. they have to steal weapons and ammo just to fight. they go for days without food and water. they've had members of their families killed by cowards firing missles from hundreds of miles away, and out of jet bombers. they see the death and destruction that just comes from out of nowhere. with no waqrning. they bury their kids and brothers and sisters and neighbors blown up bodies.

cowards!? not freakin hardly.

ok ok you have a point ZeddicusZulZorander but do you atleast agree strapping on explosives and blowinng yourself up is somewhat cowardly?

[edit on 8-5-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
do you atleast agree strapping on explosives and blowinng yourself up is somewhat cowardly?

[edit on 8-5-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

It is not cowardly.

IMO, it is illogical, but that is just my opinion, though I do understand that most groups using these techniques have no mass explosive delivery systems other than what they use.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
ok ok you have a point ZeddicusZulZorander but do you atleast agree strapping on explosives and blowinng yourself up is somewhat cowardly?

As defined by who and what? And which "non-cowards" are you comparing it to?

Honestly, as someone that has sat shoulder-to-shoulder with some badass Spec Warriors & SEALs, real Shooters & Looters...NO, I don't.

The whole idea of Spec War is to do what your opponent doesn't expect. An example I could use would be the SEALs. They train to take the hardest possible route to their target. As they say "getting there is half the fun" and that usually means suprising the enemy by going through the "back door." Is that cowardly? Doing what the enemy doesn't expect?

They also try and use maximum firepower as fast as possible to KILL. That is the objective. If they could sneak in and plant a bomb to blow the whole building, they would. If they could shoot the bad guys from a mile away, they will.

THAT is their goal. So if a SEAL uses a laser designator from a mile away to signal a ship to shoot a Tomahawk missle that homes in and takes out a city block that has a terrorist HQ...is that gutsy? Is that the Rambo you picture in your head? That's the real deal. That is how it's played. No blanking rules.

Just because we don't believe in trading a life outright (ie. suicide bomb) doesn't mean it's cowardly. The Japanese Kamakazi pilots in WWII were not considered cowards by their culture, only by ours.

Make no mistake, KILL OR BE KILLED is thge goal. Any idiot who plays by some imagined set of rules of goodness is a dead idiot. Period.


"Permission to shoot this here bad guy, sir? He's shooting at me and has grenades but I want to be all fair like and not cowardly. May I use my knife and pistol? Yeeehaaa!"

Now I must amend myself. I do consider targeting civilians (aka: non-combatants) intentially as cowardly. That is my own personal ethics however.

The issue with the so-called "terrorists" like I said earlier, is that due to their beliefs...ALL people who are opposed to their ideals are "the enemy." That is where we differ in philosophy and it becomes a debatable question.

At one time the sniper was considered a coward, when troops would line up in rows and face each other and shoot in turns. Soldiers who hid in the trees and shot their targets from cover were considered cowards, until the more modern age when their results were deem acceptable. One soldier could kill many and live. One soldier could demoralize the enemy by pinpoint killing of officers and those in charge, which creates chaos and confusion.

That is the same goal "terrorists" have. Confusion and chaos by targetting those deemed as enemies. In this case, they draw no distiction between a front line soldier and those sitting at home supporting that soldier.

Just differences in ideology.

I think the label coward definitely applies to those who live and hide among innocent civilians for cover, who demand that certain areas such as mosques be deemed holy and safe places and then use them to run to and to store weapons, and to those who declare a war yet wear the uniform of a civilian so as to go undetected.

To those who would strap explosives to a child and send them into a crowd, there is no word strong enough to express my disgust.

Another point: I don't consider them suicide bombers. They are homicide bombers.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by jsobecky]

British Air Marshall Sir Arthur ("Bomber") Harris, architect of the strategy of indiscriminate incendiary bombing of German cities in World War II that deliberately slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children, once defended what he did as follows, in an interview for a documentary TV series:

"Tell me one action of war that is moral. Tell me one. Sticking a bayonet into a man's belly, is that moral?"

And, without defending his bombing strategy, I have to say that he was right. War is not moral. It is not fair. It is not pretty. It is not noble. There are no exceptions. If you are sufficiently strong, and your conscience is sufficiently troubled, you can afford to put rules and restrictions on it to try to pretty it up some, but that does not, in the end, change the fact that you are out to kill, maim, and destroy in order to achieve a political end.

There is no point in saying things like "terrorists are cowards." These groups are at war with us. They are also much weaker than we are. They are using the tactics available to them, just as Air Marshall Harris did in World War II. Given the fact that they ARE at war with us, ANY tactic they use against us is going to involve killing, maiming, and destroying in order to achieve a political end. Is that moral? Or course not. War never is. No matter how you look at it, when war happens, someone has done wrong. But the use of so-called "terrorist" tactics doesn't make it any MORE immoral than it would otherwise be.

I also don't think you can call someone a coward when they are willing to go to war with the most powerful country in the world. Many unflattering labels come to mind, don't get me wrong, but that one doesn't fit.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard


the terrorists im talking about are the ones in iraq driving around in rigged cars waiting for the right time to explode. the ones with bombs strapped on to them who walk into crowds and explode also fit into my coward category.

do you think thats fair fighting? thats how a coward fights. they get you but you cant get them. with war jets gunners from the gound can see the threat and attempt to stop it.

It's called an "Ambush". You use it when you want to kill your enemy, and take them by surprise. We (The US) have done it all the time in past wars. You put mines on the side of a road, wait for a convoy to pass through, and detonate the explosives when they will cause the most damage. The only difference is instead of living to fight another day, they die too.

Another thing, I hate to be rude, but are you dumb? A big part of combat is getting yourself in a position to kill as much of the enemy as possible with as little risk to you as possible. You consider that cowardly?