Cowardly does not necessarily mean “fearful.”
Definition 2 from Webster’s:
Pretty clear.
Seems to me that ‘cowardly’ is a pretty good word in this case. If ‘cowardly’ can be considered the opposite of ‘brave,’ these guys filled the bill nicely!
Some of them took up residence here and hid their agenda behind an anonymous wall of silence. Others sneaked into the country across unguarded borders. All enjoyed the privilege of being here, none contributed anything to the society, all secretly plotted to destroy and kill on a massive scale. There is no bravery in any of this, but the cowardice shines.
Only the cowardly would seek a path to devastation that requires no tools beyond a box-cutter, a few lessons on a flight simulator, and a rudimentary command of English. Only the cowardly would visit death upon thousands of strangers in a strange land, without the courtesy of even telling them why.
There is no bravery in infiltrating a nation that has always been remarkably easy to enter. There is no bravery in occupying space in this country, planning a crime, learning to fly, all on someone else’s tab. There is no bravery in taking over an airliner when you know, with certainty and in advance, that no one on board is armed in any way or could conceivably anticipate your actions.
There is no bravery in anything they did. There is insanity, to be sure. There is malice aforethought, a concept generally used to define premeditation, but not bravery.
I think ‘cowardly’ is a very good word to describe what those bastards did last week.
I equate it to shooting someone in the back, which is definitely an act of cowardice.
Yes, it’s cowardly. The fact that they die in the process doesn’t elevate the act. They didn’t fight; they committed murder against themselves in order to murder others.
They wrapped themselves in hysterical martyrdom to slaughter ordinary people who just happened to be handy. The loathesome cowards said “war!” and took that as license to arbitrarily kill anyone who wasn’t THEM.
They weren’t brave. They didn’t live for anything and they didn’t die for anything. They didn’t fight. They just killed.
Veb
“Because they kill innocent people.”
Yeah, liike when the US dropped a bomb on a tent they thought that OSB was under but he was not, but a lot of innocent people were.
Yes, handy, it’s JUST like that. :rolleyes:
Try considering the circumstance, intent and magnitude of both of those situations before you claim them to be alike.
It is, generally, cowardly to attack undefended civilians - that’s why we have such debates over Allied bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The former is a particular problem because there really seems to have been little military justification other than terror. (Peculiarly, the degree of terror that the latter two unleashed provides their best military justification - fear of additional such bombs averted an invasion that most historians agree would have been far bloodier than the 125,000 lives so lost.)
There’s no military value to attacking the World Trade Center. The White House and the Pentagon, however, are much more justifiable, as the seats of military command. Our error is in failing to protect them more effectively.
I’ll tell you why it was cowardly–because not one of those hijackers will have to look the loved ones of the victims in the eye, or face any consequences for what they have done. Do you honestly think that they would have been willing to die for their beliefs if they’d felt that there would literally have been hell to pay, but that they would be helping their cause in the long run? No–they think that by this action, they will go on to a life of eternal and ultimate pleasure. Some bravery.
I’d say that a suicide bombing is brave. However, it was pretty stupid and misguided. Bravery is not necessarily a good thing, it’s just a strength. We were attacked by a strong enemy. They are obviously extremely misguided, but I won’t deny that they are stong.
The cowardice comes in when you have a leader sending men off to do things that he wouldn’t do himself. He says “Wouldn’t if be great if we suicide bombed the trade center?” then he clarifies, “I mean if YOU suicide-bombed it.” Then he goes into hiding and denial. Couple that with the attack on unarmed, unprepared civilians and I doubt there’s an aspect of cowardice the whole terrorist organization hasn’t covered.
Thank you oxymoron for your specific and informative answer. And you as well, larry mudd. They were thought provoking. Many of the rest of the answers I find, IMO, very testosterone filled rhetoric.
“…because not one of those hijackers will have to look the loved ones of the victims in the eye” (mayflower). Along those lines, every bomber pilot in the world is a coward.
“Only the cowardly would seek a path to devastation that requires no tools beyond a box-cutter, a few lessons on a flight simulator, and a rudimentary command of English” (tbone2). Somehow it is less cowardly to use a big ungainly weapon than a smaller weapon, when the smaller one works better.
“even a suicide bomber: he thinks he’s going to be serviced by 70 virgins or what have you” (king rat). Hey knucklehead, go ask Muslim Guy about their religion before making ignorant comments.
Most thought it not being a war, and not against military that make the suicide bombing cowardly. I liked what china guy offered. “Something about it not being a fair fight. Japanese Kamakaze bombers during WW2 stuck terror into the hearts of the Pacific fleet” (china guy). This brings up another topic. According to many of the sentiments in this string, the Kamakaze pilots wouldn’t be cowards b/c it was during war and the attack was against the other military. Would the Viet Cong suicide bombers then also not be cowards? What about Native Americans, who attacked and ran during every battle? They cowards? And, according to most of the sentiments above, Nagasaki and Hiroshima make Roosevelt the biggest coward of the century. hmmmmmm
IMHO “go(ing) out into Wall street and start punching all the business men and insulting America and all that, then die for your cause as you get stomped to death by a hundred PO’d New Yorkers.” (mouthbreather) is not morally imperative.
did i really say roosevelt?
As a generalization I can agree with this, however:
**(1)**An instantaneous destruction of Washington D.C. in its entirety would not end the U.S. government or cripple the U.S. military. The death and destruction caused at the Pentagon last week, an unquestionably hideous deed, might be likened to poking a hornet nest with a stick.
(2) There was no error on the part of America in “failing to protect” the chosen targets of the terrorists. Without driving the U.S. bankrupt or trampling on the rights we hold so dear, just how would you propose to protect every possible target from every possible threat. When was the first time it occurred to YOU that it might just be a nifty little trick to kill thousands of innocents using a hijacked commercial jet to take down a building or two? Furthermore, just how would you propose to stop such a plane that is flying over a heavily populated area? Sorry, can’t buy the suggestion that we were in ERROR.
(3) Our dead at the WTC and Pentagon were victims of cowards who can’t even verbalize why they hate America so much. In the worst case, they can be considered monstrously inhuman mass murderers, the likes of which we have not seen since the Holocaust. They are, at best, misguided and jealous fools who can’t stand the fact that the hard work of Americans has allowed us to build such a great nation. In either case, they have grossly miscalculated America’s capacity for forgiveness.
While I will concede to occasionally being a knucklehead, calling me ignorant…well that’s hitting where it hurts!!
I never said that it was part of the Muslim religion. As evidence that this 70 virgin business is used as tool to recruit suicide bombers, I offer the following corroboration:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1446000/1446003.stm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/read/14jan01.htm
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010719/world/02mideast.shtml
http://search.britannica.com/magazine/article?content_id=36809&query=atar
You can’t compare these terrorists to American revolutionaries, Native American warriors, Japanese Kamakazis, Viet Cong, or even Palastinians throwing rocks at Israeli troops. These groups are all people who used whatever means available to try to fight off a numerically and/or technologically superior invader. It takes a lot of balls to crash a fighter into an enemy warship or snipe at a Huey gunship or tank, knowing that all you are likely to accomplish is drawing its fire upon you.
Instead, compare these terrorists to Nazi’s bravely risking their lives herding people into camps against their will. Or perhaps Charles Whitman bravely defending his clock tower from the University of Texas.
Cowardly = taking what you perceive to be the easy way out of your predicament, without regard to the consequences your actions will have on others
Therefore, the hijackers were the epitome of cowardliness. They were under the delusion that they would be going straight to heaven after a very quick and easy death.
In addition to other reasons already listed, I think it’s cowardly because they’re dead, so they don’t face any punishment (unless you believe in hell). They don’t suffer the consequences of their actions.
Well if those guys were cowards, I must be a much fucking bigger coward than any of them. Like it or not, these guys did more for their cause than I would ever consider for any cause I believed in.
And I think the word cowardly is used as a way to try and insult the terrorists. Call them madmen or fundamentalist and the remaining guys wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Call them cowards and I imagine they’d take offense.
I think enough has been said on the many definitions, both real and emotional, of the word “cowardly”.
Lockdown.