PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood Shooter Hasan: Coward? [edited title]


monavis
11-12-2009, 07:44 AM
I wonder how many dopers watched the CNN program about Major Hasan and saw the 2 radical Muslims in New York praising Osama. One was ranting about his beliefs, but were he in a different religion in a Muslim country he wouldn't have the freedom to act in such a manner.

It is easy to call anyone who thinks differently, a infidel, or a heratic, but forget their religion was also started by a human, and not a God. Their belief is not in God but Muhammad.

It made me wonder why we do not call the So Called Terriosts, just crazy cowards. What courage does it take to go into a room of people you know are not armed and open fire on them? Osama is the biggest coward of them all, he keeps himself hidden and lets some poor misguided person (or even a kid), go into a crowd of innocent people and blow them up. They cover their faces because they are afraid to be known, or act like they are one of the armies that are against them, but would't think of wearing something to identify themselves as a Muslim when they do their cowardly act.

I wonder why the Muslims that believe in peace let them selves be frightened into not standing up for what they believe is right. Many of them are also paying the price for the act of a small bunch of Cowards.

Keweenaw
11-12-2009, 11:56 AM
It is easy to call anyone who thinks differently, a infidel, or a heratic.

or radical

Marley23
11-12-2009, 12:10 PM
It made me wonder why we do not call the So Called Terriosts, just crazy cowards.
Lots of people say that. But there are lots of crazy cowards who don't go into terrorism, so it helps to be specific.

What courage does it take to go into a room of people you know are not armed and open fire on them?
At the risk of wandering into Bill Maher territory... it does take some. "Brave" is far from the first word I would use to describe these people, but it does take some commitment to do something you know is going to get you killed. Most people wouldn't do that for any reason.

They cover their faces because they are afraid to be known, or act like they are one of the armies that are against them, but would't think of wearing something to identify themselves as a Muslim when they do their cowardly act.
Are you sure about that? And in any case most of the time they don't need to identify themselves as Muslims. It can usually be assumed based on targets, messages, claims of resposibility and things like that.

I wonder why the Muslims that believe in peace let them selves be frightened into not standing up for what they believe is right.
Some of them don't want to get killed. But I think there is more opposition than you realize - and even if people support some of (say) Al Qaeda's aims, they usually get tired of them when they start attacking their neighborhoods or causing government crackdowns. These groups attack more Muslims than anyone else, which is self-marginalizing. You don't hear a lot about it because there just aren't that many Muslims in America, and we don't find Muslims overseas very interesting when they are not terrorists.

Really Not All That Bright
11-12-2009, 04:24 PM
Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire wholives in caves and is more or less permanently on the run from the most powerful country on earth... by choice.

I don't think coward is really the right word. Crazy, certainly.

ShibbOleth
11-12-2009, 04:41 PM
Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire who lives in caves and is more or less permanently on the run from the most powerful country on earth... by choice.

I don't think coward is really the right word. Crazy, certainly.

You know who else is a multi-millionaire who lives in caves and is more or less permanently on the run from the authorities? Batman.

Really Not All That Bright
11-12-2009, 07:02 PM
You know, you never see them in the same place at the same time...

Marley23
11-12-2009, 07:23 PM
I don't know if you can really call Bin Laden a millionaire. Most or all of his assets were probably frozen years ago. He'd be very very rich if he had not chosen terrorism, but I don't he was expecting the life he has as a consequence of the attacks he organized.

Really Not All That Bright
11-12-2009, 07:43 PM
He received a $7 million monthly stipend from the family fortune until 1992, and his own assets weren't all frozen until some time after 9/11. Remember, he was already living in Sudan in the mid-90s; hardly the lap of luxury, even if he had holed up in the presidential mansion.

Skylark
11-12-2009, 08:58 PM
According to a page in Peter Bergen (who, with Peter Arnett, was one of the first Westerners to interview bin Laden)'s book Holy War, Inc., one the subject of Osama's access/relations/money with the rest of his family: "blood is thicker than water."

There's a book that just came out called Growing Up bin Laden, written by one of his (estranged) wives and children, about what life was like with the man. I just started, so no juicy bits yet, but Vanity Fair ran an excerpt: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/10/omar-bin-laden-200910

Sailboat
11-13-2009, 12:03 AM
It is easy to call anyone who thinks differently, a infidel, or a heratic, but forget their religion was also started by a human, and not a God. Their belief is not in God but Muhammad.

What are you getting at here? Is this some roundabout way of stating that your god is real and theirs is made up?

And anyway, you're wrong. It's not "Muhammad is great!" they shout, after all. They believe Muhammad explained a greater truth, but they believe in Allah, and Allah is pretty much just a name for God, analogous to the Christian God.

Shmendrik
11-13-2009, 12:38 AM
What are you getting at here? Is this some roundabout way of stating that your god is real and theirs is made up?

And anyway, you're wrong. It's not "Muhammad is great!" they shout, after all. They believe Muhammad explained a greater truth, but they believe in Allah, and Allah is pretty much just a name for God, analogous to the Christian God.

Indeed. In fact, Islam insists on an incorporeal God with no human attributes, unlike some other religions. I'd think many Muslims look at the Christian view of Jesus and see Christianity as a religion started by man, or at least a man-god.

gonzomax
11-13-2009, 12:54 AM
He received a $7 million monthly stipend from the family fortune until 1992, and his own assets weren't all frozen until some time after 9/11. Remember, he was already living in Sudan in the mid-90s; hardly the lap of luxury, even if he had holed up in the presidential mansion.

Plenty of Saudis funnel money into Osamas organization. 18 of the 911 attackers were Saudis. They are not going broke.

monavis
11-13-2009, 07:52 AM
What are you getting at here? Is this some roundabout way of stating that your god is real and theirs is made up?

And anyway, you're wrong. It's not "Muhammad is great!" they shout, after all. They believe Muhammad explained a greater truth, but they believe in Allah, and Allah is pretty much just a name for God, analogous to the Christian God.

I am saying that what people say is the words of God are really the words of humans, no, God didn't say anything unless we are gods as the Psalmist states. Muhammad was believed to write what a god said, but because he said God(Allah's angel) dictated a book , doesn't prove anything so one believes in the writer or author not God.

I know they shout God is great,but I doubt that a God would be pleased that someone killed in His name.

Yes, peace loving Muslims try to follow a god ,but those like Major Hasan who go into a room of defenseless people and kill them in the name of their god is not bravery, he may believe it is a good thing but in human terms it is a cowardly act.

If the USA wanted to they could bomb all the people off the earth, our culture doesn't think that way,and they should be grateful that we are not like them, they go on and on if by accident some inncocent people are killed in a war, but they think nothing of killing at random and even killing some of their own people as Major Hasan did.

Some of the people in the Twin Towers were Muslims but that didn't stop the suicidal ones from killing all the innocent people, some who may have even sympathized with them.

monavis
11-13-2009, 07:58 AM
Indeed. In fact, Islam insists on an incorporeal God with no human attributes, unlike some other religions. I'd think many Muslims look at the Christian view of Jesus and see Christianity as a religion started by man, or at least a man-god.

It is my understanding that Muslims consider Jesus a Prophet, just that Muhammad got the story straightened out by some angel of God who dictated a book to him.

I would rather be a slave in the pre-civil war period than be a Muslim. The women are treated like slaves. If a man can hit his daughter with a car and kill her, and injure her mother because she is too western, I doubt such a act would be praised by a Supreme Being, who also created a woman.

monavis
11-13-2009, 08:05 AM
or radical

Even some Muslims call them radical. If one's beliefs lead one to Kill another person they are acting radical, hence the use of the word.

I do not believe the Majority of Muslims want the radicals to kill anyone just as I do not believe that the mainstream Christians who are anti-abortion want anyone blowing up clinics,or killing doctors and nurses.

monavis
11-13-2009, 08:20 AM
Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire wholives in caves and is more or less permanently on the run from the most powerful country on earth... by choice.

I don't think coward is really the right word. Crazy, certainly.

All cowards run by choice. He is very content letting some poor brainwashed person or young kid blow himself up. If blowing oneself up for a cause is good why isn't Osama blowing himself up? What good has he done for the Muslim people, he may have killed a lot of Westerners, but so is he responsible for killing a lot of his own followers, who if they wouldn't have killed the people in the Twin Towers, the pentagon and the plane in Pennyilvania, then the USA, and the other countries would not have gone into Afhganistan. The Taliban were given a choice, but chose Osama over their own people. He has stirred up hate but accomplished nothing more, than distruction for even the one's he is supposed to be doing this for.

Really Not All That Bright
11-13-2009, 09:00 AM
Whether or not he has done any good for the Muslim people doesn't factor in to whether or not he is a coward.

Czarcasm
11-13-2009, 09:51 AM
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

DanBlather
11-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Wait, so Muslims think someone after Jesus spoke to God and got the real story? That's heresy! I hope we elect someone like Mitt Romney for President so he can straighten this out.

Kimstu
11-13-2009, 10:37 AM
I would rather be a slave in the pre-civil war period than be a Muslim. The women are treated like slaves.

Way too broad a brush to make sense, dude. You mean that you'd rather be a slave in the antebellum South than be a Muslim in a repressive theocratic Islamic society where the women are treated like slaves.

The status of women in Islamic societies ranges from conditions that, as you note, are little better than slavery (as in Taliban Afghanistan) all the way up to full equality of legal rights (as in Turkey).


I wonder why the Muslims that believe in peace let them selves be frightened into not standing up for what they believe is right.

Partly it's just the universal tragedy of apathy or timidity on the part of the well-intentioned that lets the evil-intentioned get their way (you can supply the Burke quote for yourself).

And partly it's that we in the west don't hear much about Muslims who do stand up against radical fellow Muslims advocating or committing violence. This list (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_terrorism_part_ii_statements_by_organizatio/0012210) of a hundred or so official pronouncements by Muslim organizations denouncing radical Islamist violence and terror, accompanied by a list of Muslim-organized demonstrations and conferences protesting violence and terror tactics, is a good place to start if you want more exposure to the pro-peace Muslim voices.

Pashnish Ewing
11-13-2009, 11:26 AM
He is very content letting some poor brainwashed person or young kid blow himself up. If blowing oneself up for a cause is good why isn't Osama blowing himself up?Isn't this a little like calling Gen. Patton a coward for not putting himself on the front lines?

jjimm
11-13-2009, 11:37 AM
It is my understanding that Muslims consider Jesus a Prophet, just that Muhammad got the story straightened out by some angel of God who dictated a book to him.Gabriel.

madmonk28
11-13-2009, 11:40 AM
I don't think it is accurate to call bin Laden a coward, afteral he has been living for almost a decade on the run from the US and living in caves. He believes in something and has taken extrordinary risks to realize his vision, whether you believe in his vision or not.

Really Not All That Bright
11-13-2009, 11:42 AM
Contemporary accounts seem to indicate he did actually fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the sense of picking up a rifle and shooting at them.

glee
11-13-2009, 12:04 PM
It made me wonder why we do not call the So Called Terriosts, just crazy cowards. What courage does it take to go into a room of people you know are not armed and open fire on them? Osama is the biggest coward of them all, he keeps himself hidden and lets some poor misguided person (or even a kid), go into a crowd of innocent people and blow them up. They cover their faces because they are afraid to be known, or act like they are one of the armies that are against them, but would't think of wearing something to identify themselves as a Muslim when they do their cowardly act.



Yes, peace loving Muslims try to follow a god ,but those like Major Hasan who go into a room of defenseless people and kill them in the name of their god is not bravery, he may believe it is a good thing but in human terms it is a cowardly act.

If the USA wanted to they could bomb all the people off the earth, our culture doesn't think that way,and they should be grateful that we are not like them, they go on and on if by accident some inncocent people are killed in a war, but they think nothing of killing at random and even killing some of their own people as Major Hasan did.

Some of the people in the Twin Towers were Muslims but that didn't stop the suicidal ones from killing all the innocent people, some who may have even sympathized with them.

I certainly condemn terrorists (having been a few hundred feet away from an IRA bomb when it exploded in London), but I don't think that making clumsy insults is helpful in understanding and dealing with these people.

1. Major Hasan was despicable, but there's no reason to call him a coward. He knew he was going to be shot eventually.
Similarly the evil 9/11 bombers were prepared to die for their beliefs.

2. The USA has bombed many countries, killing civilians as well as military in the process.
The reasons for use of atomic weapons at the end of WW2 has been discussed many times, but it is not correct for you to say 'our culture doesn't think that way'.

And of course people object 'if by accident some innocent people are killed in a war'.
This happens regularly even to US soldiers and allies:

- A U.S. F4 Phantom aircraft dropped a 500 lb. bomb on the command post of the 2nd Battalion (Airborne) 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade while they were in heavy contact with a numerically superior NVA force on 19th of November 1967, at 1858 hours. At least 45 paratroopers were killed and another 45 wounded
- American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacks British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers.
- During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines are killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) are hit by American missiles fired by a USAF A-10
- In the Black Hawk Incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian personnel
- In the Tarnak Farm incident of April 18, 2002, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when U.S. Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt, dropped a laser-guided 227-kilogram (500 lb) bomb from his F-16 jet fighter on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry conducting a night firing exercise near Kandahar
- American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire)

And to innocent civilians:

- The Pentagon today promised a joint investigation with the Afghan government into what could turn out to be one of the highest civilian death tolls yet from US coalition bombing.
Afghan officials estimated that at least 30 and possibly more than 100 were killed near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area near the border with Iran. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/05/us-afghanistan-civilian-deaths-coalition-bombing)

- The two American "smart" bombs worked perfectly, striking what the Pentagon had identified as an Iraqi command and control center during the 1991 Gulf War.
The 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs burrowed through 10 feet of hardened concrete and detonated, punching a gaping hole in the Amiriyah bomb shelter and incinerating 408 Iraqi civilians. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s01-wosc.html)

gonzomax
11-13-2009, 02:29 PM
Ben Laden is fighting the most powerful country in the world ,with a small army, much weaker weapons . Yet he makes tapes thumbing his nose at us. That is not cowardly. He knows he can not defeat us, just outlast us. Then he will be a hero.

mswas
11-13-2009, 02:54 PM
Ben Laden is fighting the most powerful country in the world ,with a small army, much weaker weapons . Yet he makes tapes thumbing his nose at us. That is not cowardly. He knows he can not defeat us, just outlast us. Then he will be a hero.

Osama bin Laden is probably dead already.

Marley23
11-13-2009, 03:15 PM
Osama bin Laden is probably dead already.
Seems like every time someone says that, another video pops up. When was the latest one, January?

Really Not All That Bright
11-13-2009, 03:19 PM
I doubt he's dead, for the simple reason that he'd be worth much more as a martyr than as a beardy guy decrying America and financing bomb plots. All they'd have to say is that he was assassinated by a Pakistani secularist in Waziristan, and that way they incite anger against non-Islamist forces in Pakistan and turn him into a martyr and make sure the US is seen to have failed, all at once.

BuickGNX1987
11-13-2009, 07:28 PM
Seems like every time someone says that, another video pops up. When was the latest one, January?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/03/world/main5058482.shtml

Looks like May or June.

I haven't had the internet for a few years, but when I did, it seemed like his tapes were very vague which made me think that he was dead and the tapes were made much earlier and then released when they seemed to fit the current situation best. However, with this one referencing Obama, which would have been pretty hard to predict in the early 2000's, that idea is out the window. Until this, I would've guessed he died within a couple of years after 9/11.

monavis
11-14-2009, 08:10 AM
Whether or not he has done any good for the Muslim people doesn't factor in to whether or not he is a coward.

Since Bin Laden is not the head of a government and hides, he is sure acting like a coward. If a person has some one else do their dirty work and hides because he doesn't want people to know where he is, that is a cowardly act. To send someone else to kill a bunch of innocent people is the act of a coward. You can honor such actions but I do not!!

monavis
11-14-2009, 08:23 AM
Way too broad a brush to make sense, dude. You mean that you'd rather be a slave in the antebellum South than be a Muslim in a repressive theocratic Islamic society where the women are treated like slaves.

The status of women in Islamic societies ranges from conditions that, as you note, are little better than slavery (as in Taliban Afghanistan) all the way up to full equality of legal rights (as in Turkey).


Partly it's just the universal tragedy of apathy or timidity on the part of the well-intentioned that lets the evil-intentioned get their way (you can supply the Burke quote for yourself).

And partly it's that we in the west don't hear much about Muslims who do stand up against radical fellow Muslims advocating or committing violence. This list (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_terrorism_part_ii_statements_by_organizatio/0012210) of a hundred or so official pronouncements by Muslim organizations denouncing radical Islamist violence and terror, accompanied by a list of Muslim-organized demonstrations and conferences protesting violence and terror tactics, is a good place to start if you want more exposure to the pro-peace Muslim voices.

I am mainly referring to the Muslim women that have no choice. If they choose to wear Burkas and let their husbands keep them from expressing them selves that is their right, but the ones who are killed or beaten is a different story. In some instances such as the Taliban,etc. women have little rights and need to have a male escort to even go out. It doesn't speak well of Muslim men who are afraid to trust their wives with out them, or to let another man see them. The one's in the USA and some other countries can have some freedom, but the radicals in other countries,like Iraq, Packistan , and Afghanistan are pushing to have only their way accepted. That is what I am referring to, not the moderate Muslims who are for peace. Some in other countries are held back by fear.

A Christian in Iraq is not allowed by the radicals to even attend their services, there are many who were lucky enough to get to the USA and some of the more Moderate Muslim countries. Many in California fear the need to return to Iraq because there are no jobs for them here in the USA. At least that is what some of them were saying in a TV show I watched on Sunday.

monavis
11-14-2009, 08:25 AM
I don't think it is accurate to call bin Laden a coward, afteral he has been living for almost a decade on the run from the US and living in caves. He believes in something and has taken extrordinary risks to realize his vision, whether you believe in his vision or not.

You could give the same excuse to Hitler, he believed he was doing right for Germany and it's people, tha tsure turned out good didn't it?

monavis
11-14-2009, 08:27 AM
Ben Laden is fighting the most powerful country in the world ,with a small army, much weaker weapons . Yet he makes tapes thumbing his nose at us. That is not cowardly. He knows he can not defeat us, just outlast us. Then he will be a hero.

No, he thumbs his nose at us on film, keeping himself out of harms way. And letting some poor snook do his dirty work.

Skylark
11-14-2009, 09:42 AM
It feels better to call Osama bin Laden a coward and a phony, but the story of his life is one of a man who has walked the walk. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194260,00.html) he ain't.

Really Not All That Bright
11-14-2009, 01:47 PM
Since Bin Laden is not the head of a government and hides, he is sure acting like a coward. If a person has some one else do their dirty work and hides because he doesn't want people to know where he is, that is a cowardly act. To send someone else to kill a bunch of innocent people is the act of a coward. You can honor such actions but I do not!!
:rolleyes: Engage your brain for a second here. Nobody is "honoring" bin Laden.

Soldiers wear camouflage during combat, and hide from the enemy. Does that make them cowards?

Bin Laden may not be doing any fighting himself at the moment, but neither does a military general - and bin Laden did plenty of fighting himself during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Is he a sick bastard? Absolutely. Do I hope he suffers? Certainly. Is he a coward? Not under any reasonable definition.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 02:00 PM
Reminiscent of a line heard many years ago...

"When you get to Viet Nam, you will meet some of the bravest, most determined, most resourceful people you are ever likely to meet. And you will be there to kill them."

Skylark
11-14-2009, 03:19 PM
Reminiscent of a line heard many years ago...

"When you get to Viet Nam, you will meet some of the bravest, most determined, most resourceful people you are ever likely to meet. And you will be there to kill them."

"The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary." -Walter Sobchak.

Stoneburg
11-14-2009, 08:01 PM
Why this fascination with cowardice? Why is it so important to some to label these people as 'cowards'? I don't see what it matters or how it is relevant, not to mention you have to re-define the word with a pneumatic drill and a sledgehammer to make it fit. I'm sorry, but Osama has huge balls. Instead of living a life of luxury he has devoted himself to his ideals and has willingly become the most hunted man on the planet. Those ideals happen to be irrational and evil, but that doesn't come into the equation as far as bravery goes.

The complaint is that he is hiding, and that he has people carry out his orders. Let's take the second part first. Is any leader who doesn't carry out his own work a coward? Sorry but that is just stupid and an unsustainable position.

Does hiding make you a coward? Anyone fighting a superior enemy does best in using guerilla tactics, and that's just a pretty way of saying hide. Barack Obama isn't out in the Pakistan mountains hunting Osama with a knife, does that make him a coward?

Just because you're an evil, disgusting person with despicable ideas doesn't make you a coward. Let's not try to fit every negative lable in the dictionary on him, just stick with the ones that are true, they are enough.

madmonk28
11-14-2009, 08:15 PM
You could give the same excuse to Hitler, he believed he was doing right for Germany and it's people, tha tsure turned out good didn't it? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not talking about whether bin Laden's goals or methodologies are "good." I'm responding to the idea that he is a coward. He most demonstrably is not a coward. He has taken real risks to his safety to follow his beliefs, that is not cowardice.

The Flying Dutchman
11-14-2009, 10:09 PM
Isn't this a little like calling Gen. Patton a coward for not putting himself on the front lines?

You obviously haven't watched the movie.

gonzomax
11-14-2009, 10:13 PM
No, he thumbs his nose at us on film, keeping himself out of harms way. And letting some poor snook do his dirty work.

Like any other general in the world.

DWMarch
11-14-2009, 11:13 PM
Reminiscent of a line heard many years ago...

"When you get to Viet Nam, you will meet some of the bravest, most determined, most resourceful people you are ever likely to meet. And you will be there to kill them."

"Anybody who runs... is a VC! Anybody who stands still... is a well-disciplined VC!"

Revenant Threshold
11-14-2009, 11:28 PM
Since Bin Laden is not the head of a government and hides, he is sure acting like a coward. If a person has some one else do their dirty work and hides because he doesn't want people to know where he is, that is a cowardly act. To send someone else to kill a bunch of innocent people is the act of a coward. You can honor such actions but I do not!! What does being or not being the head of a government make a difference in as to being a coward or not?

What's "snook" from, as an aside? I've never heard the word before.

monavis
11-15-2009, 08:30 AM
Isn't this a little like calling Gen. Patton a coward for not putting himself on the front lines?

No,it is not the same. Patton didn't hide in the hills,and order some poor uneducated guy to blow himself up, he put trained soilders in with others to fight a fair fight, they were armed and the enemy was armed, they didn't send guys to blow up buildings with a whole lot of innocent people inside some who were even of the same belief. He did all he could to protect the innocent. He wouldn't send some wacked out Major to go into a room full of unarmed men to kill them. They may have been arrested but not slaughtered. If you like Osama so much why don't you go there and live with him?

monavis
11-15-2009, 08:33 AM
Wait, so Muslims think someone after Jesus spoke to God and got the real story? That's heresy! I hope we elect someone like Mitt Romney for President so he can straighten this out.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was devine.

monavis
11-15-2009, 08:44 AM
What does being or not being the head of a government make a difference in as to being a coward or not?

What's "snook" from, as an aside? I've never heard the word before.

When a government goes to war with another they wear uniforms and at least try to fight an other army. The Heads of government make them selves availible and do not hide. A coward attacks innocent people that he doesn't care about to try to make a point. bin Laden is a citizen of Saudi Arabia and it is his government he should be trying to change, but he lacks the courage to be there and act in it's behalf, so he went to Aphganistan and sadly the USA helped him to gain the power he has,because of the Soviet Union. Now he turned against the USA because he believes that Infidels are in his country. He isn't there trying to oust them, but is hiding in the hills of Pakistan and Afhganistan letting others do his dirty work which is accomplishing nothing except getting a lot of people killed unnecesarily. His government wants the USA in Saudi Arabia, and he is apparently afraid to be there.

Snook is an old expression for some one who lets themselves be used.

monavis
11-15-2009, 08:58 AM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not talking about whether bin Laden's goals or methodologies are "good." I'm responding to the idea that he is a coward. He most demonstrably is not a coward. He has taken real risks to his safety to follow his beliefs, that is not cowardice.

Think as you wish to me he is one of the biggest cowards ever and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. If some one believed it was good to kill your loved ones because you live near them, then because of that belief, that would be a good reason to kill? Then hiding so he wouldn't be caught would be an admirable trait?

monavis
11-15-2009, 09:02 AM
Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was devine.

A post script to the last post to you. Muslims believe an angel of God dictated a Book to Muhammad on God's behalf hence the Koran.

Skylark
11-15-2009, 11:23 AM
No,it is not the same. Patton didn't hide in the hills,and order some poor uneducated guy to blow himself up, he put trained soilders in with others to fight a fair fight, they were armed and the enemy was armed, they didn't send guys to blow up buildings with a whole lot of innocent people inside some who were even of the same belief. He did all he could to protect the innocent.

You must not be too familiar with this whole modern unconventional warfare thing.

He wouldn't send some wacked out Major to go into a room full of unarmed men to kill them. They may have been arrested but not slaughtered.

They're still investigating that one.

If you like Osama so much why don't you go there and live with him?

Unnecessary.

bin Laden is a citizen of Saudi Arabia and it is his government he should be trying to change, but he lacks the courage to be there and act in it's behalf,Technically speaking, he is actually Yemeni (by blood not birth), but if he is currently banned from ever returning to Saudi Arabia.

so he went to Aphganistan and sadly the USA helped him to gain the power he has,because of the Soviet Union.This is one of those "great stories that aren't true" like in the recent thread. The United States never funded bin Laden during the Afghanistan War. US funding went through an intermediary, Pakistan's intelligence arm, thinking they would know the guerrilla's best, and although the ISI's goals and ours didn't entirely line up, bin Laden never received US $$$ or training. He had plenty of his own money, being the son of gazillionaires.

Now he turned against the USA because he believes that Infidels are in his countryYou can't turn against something if you've always been against it.

He isn't there trying to oust them, but is hiding in the hills of Pakistan and Afhganistan letting others do his dirty work which is accomplishing nothing except getting a lot of people killed unnecesarily.I would argue that currently, among other things, he is actively working to get Americans out of the Arabian peninsula. To some minor extent this has happened, as the USAF presence at Prince Sultan Air Base ended around 2006.

His government wants the USA in Saudi Arabia, and he is apparently afraid to be there.Like a lot of radicals, if he ever returned to his home country he would face a death sentence. So there is an incentive to not return for a while.

Think as you wish to me he is one of the biggest cowards ever and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.He's an asshole and a mass murderer, but not a coward.

Muslims believe an angel of God dictated a Book to Muhammad on God's behalf hence the Koran.Yes, moreorless. Jesus is also featured, Jesus in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam).

Argent Towers
11-15-2009, 11:28 AM
Snook is an old expression for some one who lets themselves be used.

I think you mean schnook. Yiddish phrase, basically meaning "sucker."

Henry Hill at the end of Goodfellas: "I have to live the rest of my life like a schnook."

Schnook is even recognized by Firefox's spellchecker.

Really Not All That Bright
11-15-2009, 12:19 PM
Think as you wish to me he is one of the biggest cowards ever and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. If some one believed it was good to kill your loved ones because you live near them, then because of that belief, that would be a good reason to kill? Then hiding so he wouldn't be caught would be an admirable trait?
I'm starting to wonder if there's a brick wall somewhere in your recent ancestry. Nobody said anything about bin Laden or his traits being admirable. We are taking issue with your use of the word coward, which is by any reasonable assessment unwarranted.
If you like Osama so much why don't you go there and live with him?
:rolleyes: Oh, please.

Revenant Threshold
11-15-2009, 01:42 PM
When a government goes to war with another they wear uniforms and at least try to fight an other army. No, not necessarily. The Heads of government make them selves availible and do not hide. "Make themselves avaliable"? How so? I was under the impression that most heads of government hired or had hired for them some form of well-trained guards, had headquarters that are considerably protected themselves, and generally tend to stay away from even front-line command, let alone front-line action. A coward attacks innocent people that he doesn't care about to try to make a point. I don't see how that's cowardly. A whole range of unpleasant things - cruel, arbitrary, and so on - but cowardly? Why?bin Laden is a citizen of Saudi Arabia and it is his government he should be trying to change, but he lacks the courage to be there and act in it's behalf, so he went to Aphganistan and sadly the USA helped him to gain the power he has,because of the Soviet Union. Now he turned against the USA because he believes that Infidels are in his country. He isn't there trying to oust them, but is hiding in the hills of Pakistan and Afhganistan letting others do his dirty work which is accomplishing nothing except getting a lot of people killed unnecesarily. His government wants the USA in Saudi Arabia, and he is apparently afraid to be there. Ah, now here you have a reasonable claim. However, i'm going to ask you a question in return; how would you define heroism in these terms?Snook is an old expression for some one who lets themselves be used. Thanks!

monavis
11-16-2009, 07:29 AM
You must not be too familiar with this whole modern unconventional warfare thing.



They're still investigating that one.



Unnecessary.

Technically speaking, he is actually Yemeni (by blood not birth), but if he is currently banned from ever returning to Saudi Arabia.

This is one of those "great stories that aren't true" like in the recent thread. The United States never funded bin Laden during the Afghanistan War. US funding went through an intermediary, Pakistan's intelligence arm, thinking they would know the guerrilla's best, and although the ISI's goals and ours didn't entirely line up, bin Laden never received US $$$ or training. He had plenty of his own money, being the son of gazillionaires.

You can't turn against something if you've always been against it.

I would argue that currently, among other things, he is actively working to get Americans out of the Arabian peninsula. To some minor extent this has happened, as the USAF presence at Prince Sultan Air Base ended around 2006.

Like a lot of radicals, if he ever returned to his home country he would face a death sentence. So there is an incentive to not return for a while.

He's an asshole and a mass murderer, but not a coward.

Yes, moreorless. Jesus is also featured, Jesus in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam).

I still see him as a coward and have no respect for such a person. To me murder is a cowardly act. It is a selfish act and an act not of bravery. Murderers do not kill in self defense that is a cowardly act, as well as evil in my opinion, of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

monavis
11-16-2009, 07:32 AM
I think you mean schnook. Yiddish phrase, basically meaning "sucker."

Henry Hill at the end of Goodfellas: "I have to live the rest of my life like a schnook."

Schnook is even recognized by Firefox's spellchecker.

In my neighborhood growing up in the 30's we used the word snook...perhaps it wasn't in the dictionary but all our neighbors used it.

monavis
11-16-2009, 07:39 AM
No, not necessarily. "Make themselves avaliable"? How so? I was under the impression that most heads of government hired or had hired for them some form of well-trained guards, had headquarters that are considerably protected themselves, and generally tend to stay away from even front-line command, let alone front-line action. I don't see how that's cowardly. A whole range of unpleasant things - cruel, arbitrary, and so on - but cowardly? Why? Ah, now here you have a reasonable claim. However, i'm going to ask you a question in return; how would you define heroism in these terms? Thanks!

A hero or heroism to me means a person risking his or her life to protect or aid another. A form of self defense or the defense of others. The soldier (who though unarmed) that took a chair and threw it at the Major during his rampage is a hero to me, he was up against a mad man with 2 automatic guns and tried to stop the killings. A hero doesn't try to kill innocent people but tries to avoid it. Heroism is not a selfish act. Murder is.

monavis
11-16-2009, 07:45 AM
I'm starting to wonder if there's a brick wall somewhere in your recent ancestry. Nobody said anything about bin Laden or his traits being admirable. We are taking issue with your use of the word coward, which is by any reasonable assessment unwarranted.

:rolleyes: Oh, please.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me and my meaning of the word coward. I give you the right to think as you wish. If I see bin Laden wearing a bomb and blowing himself up I may change my mind, until then I stay by my translation of the word coward as far as he is concerned.

monavis
11-16-2009, 07:57 AM
What does being or not being the head of a government make a difference in as to being a coward or not?

What's "snook" from, as an aside? I've never heard the word before.


I forgot to answer your question of being the head of a government etc.

A head of a government is a represenative of it's people, he (or she) takes on the chore of trying to make a country a safer and better place for it's citizens, not a renegade like bin Laden or the McVeighs who take it upon themselves to kill innocent people (or have some one else do their dirty work) to satisfy their own desires of what people should have,or not. The citizens of Saudi Arabia didn't choose bin Laden to have people blow up buildings and planes to kill innocent people some who may have at that time even sympathized with him. McVeigh wasn't acting for the people of the USA either he was acting in a selfish way. To me that is the difference.

Marley23
11-16-2009, 11:13 AM
I know I'm late to the game here, but I edited the thread title to make it more descriptive. It was "CNN story about Major Hasan."

Revenant Threshold
11-16-2009, 03:01 PM
A hero or heroism to me means a person risking his or her life to protect or aid another. A form of self defense or the defense of others. The soldier (who though unarmed) that took a chair and threw it at the Major during his rampage is a hero to me, he was up against a mad man with 2 automatic guns and tried to stop the killings. A hero doesn't try to kill innocent people but tries to avoid it. Heroism is not a selfish act. Murder is. Then I think I might see a problem. It seems like your definitions of heroism and cowardliness don't leave much of a room for, for lack of a better term, normal behaviour. I mean, it seems to me like both heroism and cowardice would be not just abnormal, but rare - for the most part, we're all pretty much in the normal, nonheroic, noncowardly place as far as our actions go. But I don't see what I would think should be a quite vast gap between what you would consider heroic and what you would consider cowardly. A head of a government is a represenative of it's people, he (or she) takes on the chore of trying to make a country a safer and better place for it's citizens, not a renegade like bin Laden or the McVeighs who take it upon themselves to kill innocent people (or have some one else do their dirty work) to satisfy their own desires of what people should have,or not. Why isn't the head of a government's desire for a safer and better country their own desires of what people should have or not? Moreover, what does this have to do with cowardliness?

Beyond that; do you really think that heads of governments have never taken it upon themselves to kill innocent people?The citizens of Saudi Arabia didn't choose bin Laden to have people blow up buildings and planes to kill innocent people some who may have at that time even sympathized with him. McVeigh wasn't acting for the people of the USA either he was acting in a selfish way. To me that is the difference. I don't see what democratic election has to do with cowardliness, either. And i'm not sure how you know for certain that bin Laden and McVeigh necessarily are selfish; I mean, they both seem to have given up quite a bit in order to act as they did.

Lemur866
11-16-2009, 11:07 PM
So were the guys who flew bomber missions over Germany (and Britain) heroes or cowards? They were there to drop bombs on cities. The bombs couldn't be aimed, they just released thousands of them and hoped a few landed on factories and bridges. But of course, plenty of bombs landed on schools and hospitals and churches and houses and orphanages.

If the British pilots bombing Germany were heroes, then the German pilots bombing Britain had to be heroes too.

The Other Waldo Pepper
11-16-2009, 11:24 PM
It made me wonder why we do not call the So Called Terriosts, just crazy cowards. What courage does it take to go into a room of people you know are not armed and open fire on them?

You've lost me; don't you think Hasan figured he'd eventually get cut down by gunfire once he started shooting at the military base? Instead of planting explosives or recruiting dupes or whatever, he picked a method of killing people that apparently involved a willingness to get shot.

monavis
11-17-2009, 07:37 AM
Then I think I might see a problem. It seems like your definitions of heroism and cowardliness don't leave much of a room for, for lack of a better term, normal behaviour. I mean, it seems to me like both heroism and cowardice would be not just abnormal, but rare - for the most part, we're all pretty much in the normal, nonheroic, noncowardly place as far as our actions go. But I don't see what I would think should be a quite vast gap between what you would consider heroic and what you would consider cowardly. Why isn't the head of a government's desire for a safer and better country their own desires of what people should have or not? Moreover, what does this have to do with cowardliness?

Beyond that; do you really think that heads of governments have never taken it upon themselves to kill innocent people? I don't see what democratic election has to do with cowardliness, either. And i'm not sure how you know for certain that bin Laden and McVeigh necessarily are selfish; I mean, they both seem to have given up quite a bit in order to act as they did.

Perhaps some heads of government are being selfish but they are elected to represent the people, Some heads of government were eveil and some may use it for their own intentions..Like Hitler for instance. He seemed to be the poster boy for evil but he didn't hide, he went out among the people and was targeted,but he wasn't a hero He was a despot. When has bin Laden been seen in public talking to his people?

Bin Laden and McVeigh may have given up some worldly comforts, but they had ideas of grandeur as their goal. Neither had a legitiment reason for killing or getting people to kill for them. Osama is worse that McVeigh because he does nothing but get pople riled up to do his dirty work.

There are better ways to get one's point across with out killing innocent people to reach your goal.

Our soldiers do not hide their faces, they wear proudly the uniforms of our country. They know they have a chance to be killed but do not want to die, but take the chance for the lives of their buddies and their country. The same goes for our allied soldiers. bin Laden's flunkys hide their faces so they won't be known.

No head of government in my opinion should go to war except in defense of the country and should not strike first. If that country is proven to be really in danger then of course it has the right to defend it self. Or in the defense of another if asked by the other country for help,as was in the war in Europe.

monavis
11-17-2009, 07:44 AM
You've lost me; don't you think Hasan figured he'd eventually get cut down by gunfire once he started shooting at the military base? Instead of planting explosives or recruiting dupes or whatever, he picked a method of killing people that apparently involved a willingness to get shot.

He may have been suicidal, but now I notice he has hired a lawyer to defend himself, and he apparently thought he could kill a lot of unarmed people before he was caught. Looks like he changed his mind now that he is still alive. It seems it was his intent to kill even more as so many were injured. He will have to wait a while to get his virgins if that was his intent! Notice he went into a room full of people he knew was unarmed and expected to escape.

monavis
11-17-2009, 07:52 AM
So were the guys who flew bomber missions over Germany (and Britain) heroes or cowards? They were there to drop bombs on cities. The bombs couldn't be aimed, they just released thousands of them and hoped a few landed on factories and bridges. But of course, plenty of bombs landed on schools and hospitals and churches and houses and orphanages.

If the British pilots bombing Germany were heroes, then the German pilots bombing Britain had to be heroes too.

The pilots intent was not to kill innocent people, and that is why war is so terrible a way to settle any dispute, as innocent people also pay the price. The pilots were also risking getting shot down, not hiding in caves etc.. There is no way to wage a war and not have innnocent people suffer or die. Hitler's intent was to kill innocent people, Jews,Gays, and Gypsies. They were not bombed but dragged to death camps. If we were like them and bin Laden we could just have killed randomly like they do with their bombs tied to their bodies go into areas where their own people are and slaughter anyone in the way.

jjimm
11-17-2009, 07:57 AM
The pilots intent was not to kill innocent peopleWhat was in the pilots' minds during this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) then? Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo)? (Or on the other side, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_coventry) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_blitz)?) What about the guys who dropped the bombs? What about the generals who gave the orders?

Marley23
11-17-2009, 08:16 AM
He may have been suicidal, but now I notice he has hired a lawyer to defend himself
Strictly speaking, it sounds like his family hired the lawyer.

The pilots intent was not to kill innocent people, and that is why war is so terrible a way to settle any dispute, as innocent people also pay the price.
Does the intent of the pilots matter? They were still dropping the bombs. And some raids were definitely intended to cause high levels of destruction and civilian damage for morale purposes. You're talking about total warfare here.

There are better ways to get one's point across with out killing innocent people to reach your goal.
Of course.

Our soldiers do not hide their faces, they wear proudly the uniforms of our country.
What do you think about the use of remote controlled Predator drones?

I'm not sure conventional definitions of bravery apply to someone who's gone nuts. You could say the guy was brave enough to do something that was likely to get him killed, or a coward for shooting innocent people - and not only that, but for doing it to avoid deployment. If you're that crazy, it probably doesn't count.

Der Trihs
11-17-2009, 08:50 AM
Reminiscent of a line heard many years ago...

"When you get to Viet Nam, you will meet some of the bravest, most determined, most resourceful people you are ever likely to meet. And you will be there to kill them."Conversations like this thread always remind me of this line from the novel 1632:

Jeff was not one of those foolish sentimentalists who thinks that courage is a monopoly of the virtuous. Like many boys his age, he was an aficionado of military history. The Waffen SS had compiled a criminal record almost unparalleled in modern history. Yet no one in their right mind had ever called them cowards. Certainly not more than once.

Our soldiers do not hide their faces, they wear proudly the uniforms of our country.
And when possible, they do that from inside tanks, or in airplanes out the reach of the enemy, or in foxholes. That's because they are brave, not stupid. Just as Osama would be stupid to go out and personally play soldier, especially since he's a sick old guy.

Really Not All That Bright
11-17-2009, 10:26 AM
His rifle clip keeps catching on the dialysis machine.

wmfellows
11-17-2009, 10:49 AM
Conversations like this thread always remind me of this line from the novel 1632.

Quite, it seems to me that monavis wants to create increasingly tortured, ad hoc definitions with the major goal - sentimental and emotional - of denying to bad people any touch on a "good" or "admirable" trait. Courage, bravery, whatever. Bad guys must be all bad and can't have and positive trait....

If that's what he wants to do, well.... his choice, but it strikes me as largely emotional and irrational.

Labrador Deceiver
11-17-2009, 11:28 AM
You've lost me; don't you think Hasan figured he'd eventually get cut down by gunfire once he started shooting at the military base? Instead of planting explosives or recruiting dupes or whatever, he picked a method of killing people that apparently involved a willingness to get shot.

People who want to commit suicide display a willingness to get shot. That doesn't make them any more or less cowardly.

I don't want to particularly associate myself with monavis here, but I'd be a lot more willing to call one of these shooters "brave" if he (or she) didn't willingly commit suicide. That's essentially what happens to these people, either directly, or by putting themselves in a situation that results in certain death. Very few end up facing the music afterward.


ETA: I take it back, at least in this case. In all of the reading I've done (obviously not enough), I thought Hasan was dead. Christ, I feel dumb.

Marley23
11-17-2009, 11:46 AM
In all of the reading I've done (obviously not enough), I thought Hasan was dead. Christ, I feel dumb.
The reports immediately after the shooting said he was dead. I think that didn't get corrected for about a day. But he's in the hospital, repotedly paralyzed from the waist down.

Revenant Threshold
11-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Perhaps some heads of government are being selfish but they are elected to represent the people, Some heads of government were eveil and some may use it for their own intentions..Like Hitler for instance. He seemed to be the poster boy for evil but he didn't hide, he went out among the people and was targeted,but he wasn't a hero He was a despot. When has bin Laden been seen in public talking to his people? Hitler had the country at large, the army, and the SS to protect him. It's not particularly impressive to not hide in such circumstances - he didn't need to. I mean, there was an assassination attempt from the inside, and that failed. If bin Laden had what Hitler had, I'd pretty much guarantee you he'd be out and about among the masses. Not having popular support doesn't make you a coward to act accordingly. Bin Laden and McVeigh may have given up some worldly comforts, but they had ideas of grandeur as their goal. Neither had a legitiment reason for killing or getting people to kill for them. Osama is worse that McVeigh because he does nothing but get pople riled up to do his dirty work. I don't think it's reasonable to claim that an overall idea of grandeur means that current, voluntary hardships aren't unselfish. Beyond that, i'm not entirely sure McVeigh had an idea of grandeur - you'll have to sell me on that point.

I agree that neither had legimitate reasons for killing people, or getting people to kill for them. But that doesn't make someone cowardly or heroic, it makes them wrong. There are better ways to get one's point across with out killing innocent people to reach your goal. And that makes them inefficient, or foolish, or cruel, but not particularly cowardly in and of itself. Our soldiers do not hide their faces, they wear proudly the uniforms of our country. They know they have a chance to be killed but do not want to die, but take the chance for the lives of their buddies and their country. The same goes for our allied soldiers. bin Laden's flunkys hide their faces so they won't be known. And? We're not debating the forces, we're debating the people. Note, however, that our soldiers wear camoflage, armour, have protective vehicles and support. Some level of hiding oneself and protecting oneself is clearly acceptable. And in the grand scheme of *hiding*, I would tend to say that hiding one's face is a much lesser degree of cowardice than not even being in the countries of major conflict.No head of government in my opinion should go to war except in defense of the country and should not strike first. If that country is proven to be really in danger then of course it has the right to defend it self. Or in the defense of another if asked by the other country for help,as was in the war in Europe. But this is projecting, not reality. What you'd like heads of government to do, not what they do. And it still doesn't have anything to do with cowardice or heroism.

Jolly Roger
11-17-2009, 07:42 PM
:rolleyes: Engage your brain for a second here. Nobody is "honoring" bin Laden.

Soldiers wear camouflage during combat, and hide from the enemy. Does that make them cowards?

Bin Laden may not be doing any fighting himself at the moment, but neither does a military general - and bin Laden did plenty of fighting himself during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Is he a sick bastard? Absolutely. Do I hope he suffers? Certainly. Is he a coward? Not under any reasonable definition.


What RNATB said. Bin Laden is a monster and if I had the chance I'd put a bullet in his head myself. But he's not a coward in the way that you probably think.

monavis
11-18-2009, 07:27 AM
What was in the pilots' minds during this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) then? Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo)? (Or on the other side, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_coventry) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_blitz)?) What about the guys who dropped the bombs? What about the generals who gave the orders?

Their intent was to defeat the enemy they did not try to delibertly kill innocent people. Yes, it is known ahead of time that some innocent people willl die in a war,but they did not set out with the intent of killing innocent people. They didn't go into market places where there were no one trying to kill them, but tried to avoid the innocent at all costs. That is the difference. Driving planes into buildings that contain no enemies in a non declared war is a big difference. Our pilots saved the lives of many Jews, Gypsies, and non Nazi's, and stopped Hitler and his allies from killing and taking over more countries.

monavis
11-18-2009, 07:28 AM
What RNATB said. Bin Laden is a monster and if I had the chance I'd put a bullet in his head myself. But he's not a coward in the way that you probably think.

You can think as you wish...I can disagree as I wish.

monavis
11-18-2009, 07:30 AM
Hitler had the country at large, the army, and the SS to protect him. It's not particularly impressive to not hide in such circumstances - he didn't need to. I mean, there was an assassination attempt from the inside, and that failed. If bin Laden had what Hitler had, I'd pretty much guarantee you he'd be out and about among the masses. Not having popular support doesn't make you a coward to act accordingly. I don't think it's reasonable to claim that an overall idea of grandeur means that current, voluntary hardships aren't unselfish. Beyond that, i'm not entirely sure McVeigh had an idea of grandeur - you'll have to sell me on that point.

I agree that neither had legimitate reasons for killing people, or getting people to kill for them. But that doesn't make someone cowardly or heroic, it makes them wrong. And that makes them inefficient, or foolish, or cruel, but not particularly cowardly in and of itself. And? We're not debating the forces, we're debating the people. Note, however, that our soldiers wear camoflage, armour, have protective vehicles and support. Some level of hiding oneself and protecting oneself is clearly acceptable. And in the grand scheme of *hiding*, I would tend to say that hiding one's face is a much lesser degree of cowardice than not even being in the countries of major conflict. But this is projecting, not reality. What you'd like heads of government to do, not what they do. And it still doesn't have anything to do with cowardice or heroism.

You call it as you like,I will call it as it seems to me. I agree to dis-agree.

monavis
11-18-2009, 07:33 AM
Hitler had the country at large, the army, and the SS to protect him. It's not particularly impressive to not hide in such circumstances - he didn't need to. I mean, there was an assassination attempt from the inside, and that failed. If bin Laden had what Hitler had, I'd pretty much guarantee you he'd be out and about among the masses. Not having popular support doesn't make you a coward to act accordingly. I don't think it's reasonable to claim that an overall idea of grandeur means that current, voluntary hardships aren't unselfish. Beyond that, i'm not entirely sure McVeigh had an idea of grandeur - you'll have to sell me on that point.

I agree that neither had legimitate reasons for killing people, or getting people to kill for them. But that doesn't make someone cowardly or heroic, it makes them wrong. And that makes them inefficient, or foolish, or cruel, but not particularly cowardly in and of itself. And? We're not debating the forces, we're debating the people. Note, however, that our soldiers wear camoflage, armour, have protective vehicles and support. Some level of hiding oneself and protecting oneself is clearly acceptable. And in the grand scheme of *hiding*, I would tend to say that hiding one's face is a much lesser degree of cowardice than not even being in the countries of major conflict. But this is projecting, not reality. What you'd like heads of government to do, not what they do. And it still doesn't have anything to do with cowardice or heroism.

Even with their protecive vechicles they are in danger and risk getting killed..bin Laden doesn't, he has some one else do it for him.

Marley23
11-18-2009, 07:35 AM
Their intent was to defeat the enemy they did not try to delibertly kill innocent people.
When you drop bombs on cities, you don't have to try to kill innocent people. It's going to happen.

Yes, it is known ahead of time that some innocent people willl die in a war,but they did not set out with the intent of killing innocent people.
Again - and this is in no way a defense of terrorism - this is demonstrably untrue. What's the purpose of setting a city on fire from the air if not killing innocent people and breaking the will of their leadership?

wmfellows
11-18-2009, 07:53 AM
Even with their protecive vechicles they are in danger and risk getting killed..bin Laden doesn't, he has some one else do it for him.

???

Mate, the guy is at risk of being killed daily, and it appears held his ground at the Tora Bora caves. He's a bloody monster, but that doesn't mean he lacks personal guts - your sentimental desire to strip the term away notwithstanding.

In many ways, Bin Laden - again a monster and a murderer - in sending teams out to commit acts of war/terror on his enemy is not particularly different in a personal sense from a head of state (or a head of an army faction) ordering troops. 'Someone else do it for him' is how large organisations work.

Frankly, he'd be a complete idiot to personally run out and attack an American, if his value to his cause and organisation is great in a Command & Control role.

tagos
11-18-2009, 10:30 AM
When you drop bombs on cities, you don't have to try to kill innocent people. It's going to happen.


Again - and this is in no way a defense of terrorism - this is demonstrably untrue. What's the purpose of setting a city on fire from the air if not killing innocent people and breaking the will of their leadership?

I've said this before and no doubt will have to say it again - you drop a 500lb bomb on a civilian compound in the middle of an Afghan village and you fully intend to kill every man, woman and child in the blast radius.

You don't get to cry 'oops' on every dead person apart from the 'intended' target.

That's not a comment on the morality - I can envisage many situations where I'd give the order - but let's call a spade a spade and not pretend these deaths are some sort of accident. They are not.

In these situations we care more about killing the target than not killing the rest but once that order to drop/fire is given, in the absence of magic weapons, we 'intend' to kill all of them.

Just like a suicide truck bomb aimed at a police station in Iraq intends to kill anyone in the area. No 'oops' there either.

Marley23
11-18-2009, 10:47 AM
I've said this before and no doubt will have to say it again - you drop a 500lb bomb on a civilian compound in the middle of an Afghan village and you fully intend to kill every man, woman and child in the blast radius.

You don't get to cry 'oops' on every dead person apart from the 'intended' target.
I might phrase that a little differently and say you're responsible for the deaths, because you knew they were going to be a consequence of the bombing, even if it was not your intent to kill everyone in the area. But it's not an accident. It's a tradeoff someone has decided is acceptable.

wmfellows
11-18-2009, 10:56 AM
That's not a comment on the morality - I can envisage many situations where I'd give the order - but let's call a spade a spade and not pretend these deaths are some sort of accident. They are not.

Absolutely agree with this. It's rather more offensive to get into contortions trying to pretend otherwise.

jjimm
11-18-2009, 11:27 AM
You call it as you like,I will call it as it seems to me. I agree to dis-agree.You can think as you wish...I can disagree as I wish.Did you mean to post this thread in IMHO originally?

Marley23
11-18-2009, 11:43 AM
Did you mean to post this thread in IMHO originally?
It was in IMHO originally.

jjimm
11-18-2009, 12:24 PM
It was in IMHO originally.Ah, OK. Yeah, that happened to me once, and led to a somewhat unexpected level of scrutiny of my opinion, which hadn't actually been written to be a cogent argument. I therefore have a bit more sympathy for monavis here (while still disagreeing to an extent with his/her opinion).

Revenant Threshold
11-18-2009, 12:56 PM
You call it as you like,I will call it as it seems to me. I agree to dis-agree. I don't agree. This may be merely a theoretical argument, but the results of it, and the argument itself, is actually quite important. If we're too slipshod with the terms we throw around, then it can lead people to think we're slipshod with our other terms. If we call an evil person a coward when they might not be, then people who realise we might be wrong to call them a coward are going to start questioning whether we're also wrong to call them evil. By showing that our judgement is flawed, people might think our judgement is flawed across the board. Even with their protecive vechicles they are in danger and risk getting killed..bin Laden doesn't, he has some one else do it for him. So do heads of government, in general. And bin Laden's at considerably more risk of being killed than many heads of government.

Really Not All That Bright
11-18-2009, 01:10 PM
I think the discussion back on page 1 about whether he's already dead is ample evidence of that.

monavis
11-19-2009, 07:43 AM
I don't agree. This may be merely a theoretical argument, but the results of it, and the argument itself, is actually quite important. If we're too slipshod with the terms we throw around, then it can lead people to think we're slipshod with our other terms. If we call an evil person a coward when they might not be, then people who realise we might be wrong to call them a coward are going to start questioning whether we're also wrong to call them evil. By showing that our judgement is flawed, people might think our judgement is flawed across the board. So do heads of government, in general. And bin Laden's at considerably more risk of being killed than many heads of government.

If a government has been attacked, or is helping a smaller government that has been attacked it is a whole different story. They are trying to save lives as much as possible. bin Laden is having people kill for his ideals, not his government, who he doesn't seem to really care about. He isn't trying to do any thing to his own government that wants the USA in there.

It seems to be the consenses that most people do not think of bin Laden as a coward and I would give them the right to think that way...to me any one who murders some one, or is responsible for a murder is a coward,(just as if one hired a hitman). bin Laden's killings are not going to remove the USA from Saudi Arabia.

If we were as inhumane as bin Laden and other despots etc. We could drop an atomic bomb and wipe out the whole country..Our aim is to stop the killings. He may think he can thumb his nose at us, but it is only because we are a humane nation that have no intent to rule the world.

wmfellows
11-19-2009, 08:20 AM
If a government has been attacked, or is helping a smaller government that has been attacked it is a whole different story. They are trying to save lives as much as possible. bin Laden is having people kill for his ideals, not his government, who he doesn't seem to really care about. He isn't trying to do any thing to his own government that wants the USA in there.

What the bloody fuck does Bin Laden's relationship with his government have to do with this?

In any case, you're wrong, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was just mounting raids or the like into Saudi this past month that ended up provoking Saudi airstrikes into Yemen.

American press may not cover that, but other English lang press does.

This leaves aside the bizarre assertion Allied forces are "save lives as much as possible." I submit if you were on the end of those bombs such pious formulations and excuse making would feel rather less convincing.

"'e chopped of me leg he did, but 'e didn't mean it, was swingin' 'is mighty great sword at the black night, nice bloke eh?"

It seems to be the consenses that most people do not think of bin Laden as a coward and I would give them the right to think that way...to me any one who murders some one, or is responsible for a murder is a coward,(just as if one hired a hitman). bin Laden's killings are not going to remove the USA from Saudi Arabia.

Well, you're using coward only as an empty term of abuse and not in any sense related to its fundamental English language meaning. That's mere name calling.

....but it is only because we are a humane nation that have no intent to rule the world.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..... Oh that is rich. Really.

Der Trihs
11-19-2009, 08:24 AM
If we were as inhumane as bin Laden and other despots etc. We could drop an atomic bomb and wipe out the whole country.
Um, no. We couldn't wipe out a whole country with one bomb. Nor could we kill Bin Laden with one because we don't know where he is. And even trying would make us quite a bit worse than him. In fact, we've already killed far more innocent people than he did. So wrong on all counts.

Really Not All That Bright
11-19-2009, 09:33 AM
In any case, you're wrong, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was just mounting raids or the like into Saudi this past month that ended up provoking Saudi airstrikes into Yemen.

American press may not cover that, but other English lang press does.
Not questioning you, but can I get a cite for this?

wmfellows
11-19-2009, 09:44 AM
Not questioning you, but can I get a cite for this?

Let me look for airstrikes, but anyway:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLD436393
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8336838.stm
Rather clear Al Qaeda still is trying on the Saudi regime.

___
I was thinking of this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1319591.html?storylink=mirelated (from a US paper the particular article, but other articles suggest it was not Al Qaeda).

Really Not All That Bright
11-19-2009, 09:52 AM
More on the Al Quaeda attacks than the airstrikes. Those'll do.

Revenant Threshold
11-19-2009, 02:40 PM
If a government has been attacked, or is helping a smaller government that has been attacked it is a whole different story. They are trying to save lives as much as possible. bin Laden is having people kill for his ideals, not his government, who he doesn't seem to really care about. He isn't trying to do any thing to his own government that wants the USA in there. Well, you've just dismissed the American revolution there too, so i'd tend to suggest you'd want to try again. It seems to be the consenses that most people do not think of bin Laden as a coward and I would give them the right to think that way...to me any one who murders some one, or is responsible for a murder is a coward,(just as if one hired a hitman). bin Laden's killings are not going to remove the USA from Saudi Arabia. That seems like an odd definition to me, and far too much of a loose one. If we were as inhumane as bin Laden and other despots etc. We could drop an atomic bomb and wipe out the whole country..Our aim is to stop the killings. He may think he can thumb his nose at us, but it is only because we are a humane nation that have no intent to rule the world. Well, I believe the intent is to stop the killings of U.S. or allied people. There's plenty of places in the world where killings occur that haven't been dealt with in some way. It's more "stop the killings, and also ensure the system in place is friendly to us". Nevertheless, while I don't deny that you could certainly call bin Laden many bad things, cowardice isn't necessarily one of them.

clairobscur
11-19-2009, 04:51 PM
AIf blowing oneself up for a cause is good why isn't Osama blowing himself up?


If waging war in Irak was good (or even if it wasn't), why weren't Bush or Cheney there, gun in hand, instead of in Washington DC?

Leaders are rarely found on the front line, nowadays.

So, it's not incoherent to tell others to blow themselves up, or charge into gunfire while not doing so yourself (or at least it hasn't been perceived that way since the middle ages)

clairobscur
11-19-2009, 04:57 PM
The way some have to call "cowards" people who willingly face death (certain death, even) for a purpose is just weird. :dubious: Actually non sentical given the meaning of the word "coward"

clairobscur
11-19-2009, 05:05 PM
Their intent was to defeat the enemy they did not try to delibertly kill innocent people.

Sorry, but the intent of the bombing of Dresden (and other similar bombings) was precisely to kill as many as possible, and cause as much destruction as possible, organized in such a way as to maximize the damages (creation of a firestorm, second raid to kill firemen in action, etc...) and with the goal of terrorizing the population and so breaking its morale.

They were deliberate attacks against the civilian population, nothing to do with what is called nowadays "collateral damage".

gonzomax
11-19-2009, 07:10 PM
Hasan was troubled and a bit nuts. The army was well aware of it and they discussed ways to get rid of him. They shipped him to Ft. Hood because it has the largest program dealing with mental health and they were understaffed. They were hoping it would work out. Apparently it did not. Many organizations move their troubles rather than deal with them. The Catholic Church paid billions because of it.

The Other Waldo Pepper
11-19-2009, 10:47 PM
He may have been suicidal, but now I notice he has hired a lawyer to defend himself, and he apparently thought he could kill a lot of unarmed people before he was caught.

Let me try again.

Imagine for a moment someone who is 100% courageous and also wants to kill a lot of people. With me so far? Hypothesize someone who (a) isn't cowardly, and (b) would like to kill lots of people.

Now figure he thinks he can kill a lot of unarmed people before he gets stopped, and thinks he'd probably kill fewer people before getting caught if he starts with, y'know, armed people. Let's say he's not afraid of getting shot; he simply wants to kill a lot of people. What would he do?

It seems it was his intent to kill even more as so many were injured.

Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I want you to build your hypothesis around: figure he intends to kill lots and lots of people, and also figure that cowardice simply doesn't enter into his calculations; he merely wants to kill a lot of people. In what ways can he improve the odds?

Notice he went into a room full of people he knew was unarmed and expected to escape.

Like that, say. A shooter who's somewhat cowardly might do likewise to improve his odds of avoiding stuff he fears, but never mind that now; given someone who (a) is not at all cowardly, but (b) wants to kill a lot of people, wouldn't he pick unarmed targets and try to maximize his chances of escape solely to further his goal of killing lots of people?

monavis
11-20-2009, 07:51 AM
As I stated before the consences seems to not consider bin Laden a coward and perhaps if one sticks to a direct meaning in the dictionary that may be the case...but I still think anyone who murders ar sends people to murder some one is a coward(My personal opinion) defending some one else or themselves is a different story. I do not expect others to believe, or think as I do, nor do I think if they do not agree their thinking is bad,stupid, or wrong, it is an opinion.

It does help my to see the mind of other people and can understand why some (not on this board) but the men who were praising bin Laden in the interview feel as they do. I thank all who responded.

Pashnish Ewing
11-20-2009, 08:25 AM
...but I still think anyone who murders ar sends people to murder some one is a coward (My personal opinion)No, that's your personal definition.

vd
11-20-2009, 02:35 PM
The consensus seems to not consider bin Laden an entomologist and perhaps if one sticks to a direct meaning in the dictionary that may be the case...but I still think anyone who murders or sends people to murder someone is an entomologist(My personal opinion).

Really Not All That Bright
11-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Well, there are probably a lot of bugs in his cave. Caves are like that.

monavis
11-21-2009, 07:59 AM
Well, there are probably a lot of bugs in his cave. Caves are like that.

It degrades the bugs to have him there!

gonzomax
11-21-2009, 06:00 PM
Osama is no coward. He was a spoiled rich kid who threw himself into a cause. He lives in caves and has the biggest strongest army in the world chasing him. He has been wounded and narrowly missed getting killed a few times. There is a huge reward for turning him in. That is not cowardice at all.

monavis
11-22-2009, 09:12 AM
Osama is no coward. He was a spoiled rich kid who threw himself into a cause. He lives in caves and has the biggest strongest army in the world chasing him. He has been wounded and narrowly missed getting killed a few times. There is a huge reward for turning him in. That is not cowardice at all.

I started this thread to see the mind of some of the dopers and their opinions, I feel I have learned a lot about what the people think and why the 2 men in the interview were so fond of bin Laden. My opinion hasn't change and I did not start the thread to find people who agreed with me, just to see how others think. I am closing the thread as I do not feel I have to keep saying the same thing over and over and I do appreciate the thoughts of others even though I may still disagree.

gonzomax
11-22-2009, 10:09 PM
Fond of Osama? I hate nobody.