You're right, the use of the word "coward" may have been ill-advised. The
terrorists - whoever they are - no doubt believe that they attacked legitimate
military targets. No different, they would suppose, than the fire-storms that
the Allies caused in Dresden, Nuremburg, Tokyo, and no different than the
"collateral damage" caused by the dropping of two A-bombs on innocent people in
Japan, etc, etc.
I guess, however, that my thought is that anyone who attacks and kills innocent
civilians is a coward. No chance for the civilians to defend themselves, or
even react in any way. Sort of like when we were kids; it was considered
cowardly to "sucker-punch" someone, even if the perpetrator had a good reason to
flatten the victim.. If you're going to fight, make it fair, give the other
party a chance to defend themselves.
Today's terrorists didn't do that. That, in my mind, is why I think of them as
cowards.
"Lewis, Gerald" wrote:
> When an amercan serviceman throws himself on a granade to save his buddies
> we do not call him a coward, or when an american sericeman willingly puts
> him/her self in the line of fire and dies defending their country we do not
> call them cowards. These terrorists, likewise, were not cowards... they
> willingly attacked what they believed was their enemy and willingly and with
> the anticipation of eternal life as a martyr proceeded to commit such an
> atrocity and ensuring their death. They may be many things, but coward is
> not one of them. It is this misunderstanding of their radical, evem for
> Islamics, cultural and religious beliefs that continue to make us
> underestimate their resolve and resources.
>
--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
