I do not think that it serves any purpose to go on about whether someone
thinks that they were cowardly.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:34:27AM -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:
> I disagree. IMHO, the attack was cowardly. They attacked defenseless
> people. Only cowards do such things.
>
> There is an assumption that the tactic of secrecy was necessary. This
> softly implies that the attack itself was necessary. Not only would
> that statement be wrong, it would be a hideous lie.
>
> respectfully,
>
> Andrew Hagen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:46:57 -0500, Ken Hanly wrote:
>
> >What has having support from a group or country got to do with its being
> >"cowardly"?
> >Keeping the affiliation secret is hardly cowardly. It is a tactical
> >necessity. To reveal affiliation is to invite immediate reprisal. It just
> >seems simple prudence. And many in the US will not care that many innocent
> >people may be killed in retaliation. There are already suggestions about
> >attacks on Afghansitan.
> >If attacking defenceless civilians is cowardly then Hirsohima must surely
> >take the prize for cowardly acts and of course
> >a number of bombing missions against Serbia. And certainly CHurchill who
> >bombed Dresden and gassed Kurds is one of the greatest cowards of our time.
> >
> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:04 PM
> >Subject: [PEN-L:16950] Re: Re: the attack
> >
> >
> >> The attack is cowardly because the attackers must have had support from
> >> some group or country. Yet, all concerned have kept their affiliations
> >> secret. They have attacked civilians, who had no way of defending
> >> themselves. For these reasons and others, they are cowards.
> >>
> >> What personal gain did the criminals get? Personal aggrandizement,
> >> fame, and a sick kind of grandeur.
> >>
> >> I realize that you have raised intellectually telling points, and I
> >> have responded emotionally. I apologize if my reply is off the mark.
> >>
> >> Andrew Hagen
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:33:04 -0500, Ken Hanly wrote:
> >>
> >> >How can the attack be cowardly? The attackers gave up their lives in most
> >> >instances. They were willing to die to achieve their goals. That is
> >hardly
> >> >cowardly.
> >> >Are you saying that people willing to put their lives on the line for
> >their
> >> >beliefs are cowards. Explain that please. Criminals usually break the law
> >> >for personal gain.
> >> >What personal gain did these terrorists obtain? Do you know of criminals
> >who
> >> >knowingly and deliberately kill themselves as part of their crime. Surely
> >> >rare, and ususally they would be crimes of passion cum suicide.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:02 PM
> >> >Subject: [PEN-L:16943] the attack
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Is everybody okay? I think Doug lives in the NYC area. Does anyone else
> >> >> live there?
> >> >>
> >> >> This attack disgusts me and should disgust the entire left and
> >> >> anti-globalization movement. This attack is cowardly, unjustified, and
> >> >> totally evil. The perpetrators are criminals of the worst kind.
> >> >>
> >> >> As for civil liberties, sometimes they must be sacrificed to preserve
> >> >> public safety. This is such a time. The point we can make is that any
> >> >> limitation on liberty should be temporary until the danger passes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Take care everyone.
> >> >>
> >> >> Andrew Hagen
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
