Would You Define the Attack as Cowardice?

***Kinda like letting sick children in Iraq that could easily be helped die instead, just to get Saddam Hussein out of power, right? ***


If you think this is at all comparable to the actions of 9/11, then I shouldn't even bother responding, because we obviously have no rational basis for an argument. However, I'll respond anyway, because I can't help myself. In your example above, we are talking about a dictator who has tried to isolate his country from foreign influence, and who has in the past invaded a peaceful neighbor. After the Gulf War, we made it clear that we wanted to make things right in Iraq, politically. You may argue that we have no right to go around installing "puppet" governments in other countries, but we do have the right to prevent people who have initiated wars from having the capability to do so again, and that is what we are doing in Iraq. They don't want us in their country, so we do only what is necessary to prevent Sadam from waging war. We learned the lesson already when we let Hitler re-arm.


The perpetrators of Tuesday's devastation were cowards. The fact that the actual hijackers had the courage to die for their crazed agenda does not make them any less cowards. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor was cowardly, though as was said, that was an attack by a known country, not an organization hiding in the shadows. Cowardly does not mean only lacking the courage to face adversity, it also means lacking the courage to take responsibility for one's actions. The level of pure evil displayed by those responsible for this is another matter, and would not have been diluted if they had stood up and said they did it. That they did not stand up, however, makes them cowardly as well as evil.

I agree with SammyB 100%, the opportunity has presented itself for the United States to go beyond the acceptable limits of surgical action (hah!) and stop worrying about public opinion. Which is an over-rated concept anyway.


My humble suggestion would be to run about two dozen tactical nuclear strikes over Afghanistan. Each payload no more than 100 megatons. Of course, neutron bombs, which eliminate personnel but leave buildings intact, would be no use in Afghanistan : those people have no buildings to start with! haw haw haw.


A small chemical run could follow, sort of fumigating the area from the lot of unseemly towel heads. The evening could be rounded off with a good old-fashioned display of napalm over blackened Kabul, to provide the background for the midnight News.

Just stop this black-and-white bullshit of "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys" - the U.S. has done many evil and "cowardly" things. Want a better example? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Really heroic, eh? Innocent civilian people killed? Lots and lots. Yeah - Quwait. Go protect your oil supply. Mission accomplished. Don't pound your f***ing chests too much. This ain't no fairy tale, this is a world full of shades of gray. The U.S. stands for many good things, and many bad things. As does the rest of the world. These people hate the U.S. for a reason, as does many in the U.S. now hate these people for a reason, and in the process hate many others that gets lumped together with them because they belong to the same nation, area, race or religion. Welcome to a world of hatred and retribution. Go ahead and take revenge. Your revenge will eventually be revenged. And if Pakistan gets involved we might all have to face a nuclear war. Great. Super. "But we're the good guys." You are as f***ing brainwashed as these moronic suicide pilots crashing into the WTC and Pentagon. You've seen too many ridiculous super-patriotic Hollywood movies. There is propaganda in the free world too, you know. Hatred lies in all of us, but the truly good guys control their anger. Do something constructive to better the world instead of destructive. An eye, and then some more, for an eye, does not do anyone any good. You think that you are only reacting and doing wrong as a reply to others doing wrong first - well, I'll tell you a little secret: that's exactly what the other guys think too, in many instances (like this time). So stop BS yourself. Thank you.

Vince,


Lest I be totally misunderstood--I am not in sympathy with the people who perpretrated the acts of 9/11. That said, you wrote:


"The hijackers themselves were neither cowards nor heroes perhaps not even human when they died. They were just forgettable wooden heads. Just ask the planners that refuse even now to acknowledge their own part in the attack. The hijackers died for nothing. They will not be remembered. It is the innocent victims that will be remembered. Make no mistake about that. Just ask any American."


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why these people acted as they did. They will be remembered--by those who planned this and all those who agree with their agenda. They are martyrs for a growing number of people who advocate such acts as part of their political agenda. They were human when they died and their memory will live on. To dehumanize them and say they died for nothing displays a lack of understanding of their motivation and the reality that this type of combat is seen as legitimate by some and may be undertaken again by those who believe that it is. Believe me, no one in our nation's national security inner circle is in agreement with you on this one. It is my belief they know that these hijackers had a reason for this awful act.


KJS

When someone slaps you, turning the other cheek instead of retaliating may be noble and may have profound benefits.


When someone is trying to kill you, turning the other cheek will only get you killed.


Nevertheless, I agree with you that RETALIATION against those trying to KILL US may not be a good idea; rather, ELIMINATION of those trying to KILL US would be a good idea.

"They were human when they died and their memory will live on. To dehumanize them and say they died for nothing displays a lack of understanding of their motivation and the reality that this type of combat is seen as legitimate by some and may be undertaken again by those who believe that it is."


Really. Who were they? What did they die for? They left nothing behind that identifies them. We had to search to determine who they were. To us they were "Anonymous". What cause did they die for? Who has taken responsiblility for their actions? They are as dumb as those clowns that are sitting in prison for trying to blow up the buildings eight years ago. They are in prison, these few are dead and their supporters are out and about and not claiming any involvement at all. Bin Laden if he was involved is a coward. For the very fact that he denied involvement. If he was involved and denies it he effectively let these followers of his die in vain.


"I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why these people acted as they did.'


You have no idea why these people acted as they did. You just assume you do. For all you know they could have been high on cocaine and wanted a thrill. Do you really believe that people that acted as these need a good reason to kill. That's a joke. They were mindless scum and they're leaders are all cowards.


vince


vince

PPDC,


I am very curious PPDC are you from the US? If you are then you don't deserve to be. Horrible but necessary is what comes to mind when I think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you are at war with a country you are basically saying that within limits the ends justify the means. You are killing people to defend your own people. I ask you: How many people would you kill to protect your family and friends? As for your next batch of filth: Why would Pakistan risk a nuclear war to harbor terrorists? What could they possibly gain? They could throw their lot in with the people who have commited the most barborous act in the last fifty years! You go tell the people who lost friends and family how evil they are for commiting acts that are no where near as barborous. Was this in defense of their people? How could it possibly be this way when they won't even take responsibility? Try as you may it is impossible to say that the US has commited such horrific unjust acts in the last 100 years.


Zach


P.S.- Our nation and world would be much better if we all took responsibility (thus the listing of my email address).

Nothing about this situation is funny. People dying is not something to be taken lightly...

What would you suggest? Have the President publish a notice saying that he considers Bin Laden naughty and the attackers to be Don't-Bees?


How would you suggest taking steps to prevent similar attacks in the future? Call the attackers bad names and have the UN publish a censure?


How about this; find the attackers support structure, destroy it. Leave nothing but smoldering craters and blood stained sands where the commanders and logistics people once stood and cheered the TV images of the WTC tower's collapsing. How about we use every means available to make sure that the next bunch who feels a need to fly a jet into a building do it understanding that not only will the pilots die but their intelligence handlers will die, their commanders will die, their trainers and financial supporters will die. How about we take action so the next time some poor kid from Kabul is offered, "the deal of a lifetime", cooking in a camp in the mountains for terrorists, he remembers that the cooks for the attackers of the WTC died along with the perimeter guards, radio operators and truck drivers.


How about if we make sure that every terrorist understands that it becomes very individual and very personal when he actively supports these actions.


Yes, people will still be brought in to terrorist organizations out of despair or duress. This is a basic aspect of human nature, man is a violent creature and some men won't suppress their violent tendencies. They will use violence and threats of it to bring people to work for them. This is one of the true tragedies of the situation. People will die in terrorist camps who are there only because the terrorist commander threatened to kill their family unless this poor sap would come over and run their radios. Sad? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Desperately unfortunate? Yes. Any more sad, horrible or unfortunate than the people who died in the Pentagon and in New York? Not hardly.


Pacifism doesn't work until humanity is ready to give in to it. Until then, they hurt us, we hurt them so badly they can't ever think about hurting us again without remembering the carnage brought by the forces of the United States and its allies.


Pacifistic solutions haven't worked with terrorists in the past, why should anyone expect them to work now? Have terrorists somehow evolved morally in the decades between Brigada Rosa and today?


J.A. James