You obviously haven’t watched the movie.
Like any other general in the world.
“Anybody who runs… is a VC! Anybody who stands still… is a well-disciplined VC!”
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.
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?
Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was devine.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.