|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 24, 2005 16:02:16 GMT
Absolutely David - never underestimate your opponent or you are the fool indeed. However, one cannot be courageous and a coward at the same time. The definition of the two contradict each other. Since they are cowards-instead of fighting, they committed suicide and did not face their opponents. Instead, they kill innocent people who cannot defend themselves (like the bully who will not face the person who will stand up and fight back - bullies are cowards too), unlike the soldier who does not want to die, but rather fight and face his opponent and wants to go back home to his family after the job is done. The argument of "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" is a load of crap. I think that we are 90% in agreement. But I still hold that they are not cowards. They are dishonorable, etc., but I wouldn't label them cowards just because they don't fight what we consider "the fair fight." In fact, in the US revolutionary war, the US refused to fight what the British considered to be a fair and honorable fight, and we weren't labeled as cowards. Again, we simply selected a battlefield on which we could win!! To win wars, you need heroes (our troops), demons (Saddam, terrorists, etc.) and a cause (spreading freedom). Both sides must position themselves to gain support in these areas. War is not a matter of virtue, it is a matter of victory. We fight "fair" because it provides a strategic advantage to gain support of civilians, both at home and in theater. We fight "fair" because in war, you need to demonize the opposition to get your soldiers to agree to kill their fellow human beings. We fight "fair" because that's part of our cause. They fight "dirty" because they lack the military strength to face us on the battlefield... They fight "dirty" because that creates the heroes in their culture. They fight "dirty" because they have successfully demonized us in their eyes. They don't fight "dirty" because they are cowards. War is not fought between individuals and their petty personality flaws. It is fought strategically and tactically by people aiming to claim victory on a large scale. Here's a hypothetical situation to consider... And please don't mistake this for support of their cause... You are under the oppression of the world's largest military power. Their technology is infinately superior to yours and they have professionally fielded armed forces with essentially unlimited funding compared to yours. And... you believe your cause is just... Do you: A. Formally declare war on them and line up your troops in the desert across from their tanks. Then cross your fingers and pray that "the just will prevail." B. Fight guerilla tactics against their areas of weakness. And take your best shot at victory. I think that we can agree that if they "faced" us they would lose. So why would we expect them to do so? Would you? (assuming your cause was just) Would this make you a coward? Or would it indicate tactical acuity and an ability to attack weaknesses instead of entering into a fight you knew you would lose? Let's forget about who has moral highground and who has virtue and let's start kicking their asses!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Melton on Jul 24, 2005 16:29:36 GMT
Thanks for moving the thread David. I see what you are saying too. And I think you are right that the only part we disagree on is what exactly a coward is. I don't think fighting dirty is even part of the formula. A fight is a fight and you whatever you need to do to win is legit IMO. However, a coward doesn't fight - a coward only tries to intimidate. Terrorists are not fighting - they are simply trying to intimidate (and it worked in Spain and the Phillipines). When confronted, they will back down. Have you seen one terrorist fight? No, because we have yet to confront them - we are simply neautralizing their tactics.
Unfortunately we are not fighting the terrorists directly - we can't - it is an impossibility. Our "war" is not a conventional one and we are "fighting" in preventative ways such as security and taking out people who support it (when we find them e.g. Saddam, Al-Zarqawi, et. al).
As much as I would love to start kicking their asses, we first must ask them to come to the arena - which of course they will never do.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 24, 2005 19:49:46 GMT
Good points, but still... If I had a legitimate beef with a country with the military resources of the US, I wouldn't face them in battle. And I don't think that this would make me a coward... Hollywood makes it seem that it is noble to throw your life away against impossible odds (and it may be so) but it doesn't help you accomplish your objectives. DISCLAIMER COZ PEOPLE MISUNDERSTAND THIS KIND OF THING: I DON'T THINK THEIR BEEF IS LEGIT!!!  Websters defines courage as such: "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery." The definition doesn't attempt to describe that the self-possession, confidence, and resolution must be for a worthy objective. Now we don't know what went through their minds when they detonated their bombs or crashed those planes, but I bet there was fear that they had to overcome to accompish their objective (however twisted). And that is courage and as you stated, a coward can't be courageous at the same time. War is what happens when one country's diplomatic attempts to exert their will on another fails. In the case of terrorists, there is no diplomatic channel (or they don't know how to open one) so they begin with violence. I'm not saying that we should open diplomatic channels or negotiate with them, but we should understand that their actions come from frustration at being unable to exert their will. This frustration is the fuel that drives their recruiting efforts and I think that while we hunt down existing terrorists, we should also seek to understand what drives their recruitment to stem the tide of a new generation of terrorists. |
|
|
|
Post by kyushindo on Jul 24, 2005 20:18:51 GMT
There is nothing noble about being a terrorist, they may in the minds of some not appear as cowards, but they are scum!
Despite spouting about causes etc more often than not terrorists are motivated by self gratification. I know men who have in the past been terrorists, they have killed people in the name of their cause, and they, at the time excused their activities by saying they were soldiers. However, now these same men, having served their life sentences, will tell you quite clearly that they, on reflection, were seeking their own ends! This is not an hypothesis but fact, I know these men very well, one is a close friend!
What you seem to be advocating is that the end justifies the means - in the warped thinking of the terrorist that may be so, however when brought to their senses even terrorists see through this folly.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 24, 2005 22:08:36 GMT
There is nothing noble about being a terrorist, they may in the minds of some not appear as cowards, but they are scum! Now we agree!! What you seem to be advocating is that the end justifies the means - in the warped thinking of the terrorist that may be so, however when brought to their senses even terrorists see through this folly. I hope I didn't seem to be advocating this - it wasn't my intent... |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Melton on Jul 25, 2005 1:14:41 GMT
The key in that definition is "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables...". The assumption therefore is that they are of a stable/rational mind. They are not! In fact we DO know what is going through their minds (as described by several extremists)-they are misguided and brainwashed into thinking they will be saved by Alah if they kill the infidels. We do know how they think - Al Qaeda soliders are trained to think not to be afraid to carry out a suicide and said "you must crave death, not fear it in order to overcome the infidels."
I think the way you are looking at it, Eric Rudolf (who blew up abortion clinics), Timothy McVeigh (who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma) or even someone who is phsycotic and drives into a crowd of people are all courageous. Or better yet, if I am hearing voices in my head to kill all who wear blue shirts, surely that does not make me courageous. Using that logic would make all criminals brave or courageous.
If you signed up, then you do what you are told regardless - it is your duty to the country and the promise you made when you signed up. Surely you would not have signed up for military duty on a conditional basis or think there is no possibility of error on the part of your superiors. Most of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy thought the odds were impossible, but instead used indomitable spirit to do the right thing and they did indeed accomplish their objectives. God forbid I saw a family member or one of you getting beat up by a gang of hoodlums. Even if there were 10 of them, I would go in and try to help. It may not accomplish the objective, but it would surely help. Doing nothing is cowardly.
Ray - quite true. They are courageous only in the minds of other terrorists or anyone who has the type of warped thinking that terrorism will produce any long term results
|
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 25, 2005 14:10:20 GMT
Most of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy thought the odds were impossible, but instead used indomitable spirit to do the right thing and they did indeed accomplish their objectives. The odds weren't impossible - look at the results... It was a well-planned and executed invasion designed for the best chances to win... Individual soldiers do what they're told, but those who send them into battle should send them into battles they can win, and then setup those battles for the best chance for victory. So to expect terrorist leaders to send their followers (can't call them soldiers!) into face-to-face battle with the US is not a reasonable expectation. If there's any cowardice, it's in the terrorist leadership for not finding a way to open diplomatic channels, not the misguided teenager with the bomb strapped to their back... For those interested in such topics, there is a very good book called How Wars are Won: The 13 Rules of War - from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror by Bevin Alexander. It discusses the obsolescence of the open battlefield in light of its unsurvivability against modern weapons and closes with an excellent discussion of how to effectively fight terror. It also has some interesting material on warfare throughout the ages. My only point throughout this whole discussion was that in our efforts to demonize the terrorist (which is an effective measure by the way and I don't oppose it - plus there is little we need to do to further demonize them!) we shouldn't mistake who they are. Terrorists, just like any group of people, will have differing levels of courage on an individual basis. If we plan all of our strategies with a sweeping classification that they are all cowards, then we will make some grave errors that will cost lives on our end. However, since this thread has wiped out what little karma I had earned, I will close my mouth now! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Melton on Jul 25, 2005 14:58:58 GMT
There - I just gave you some Karma so you keep coming back for some well thought out discussions. Even if we disagree on some things (I think it is more symantics), this is what IAOMAS is about. We can all do it in a respectful way to each other. . . hey that is also what the free world is about isn't it? So, don't be a coward (kidding) and post away! |
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 25, 2005 15:15:06 GMT
There - I just gave you some Karma so you keep coming back for some well thought out discussions. Even if we disagree on some things (I think it is more symantics), this is what IAOMAS is about. We can all do it in a respectful way to each other. . . hey that is also what the free world is about isn't it? So, don't be a coward (kidding) and post away! Hehe - back at you buddy!! DaveMelton.Karma++ |
|
|
|
Post by Tim White on Jul 25, 2005 20:32:47 GMT
Unfortunately, that is why the Government calls it a Police Action.
Tim White
USA, MPC Ret
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim White on Jul 26, 2005 2:49:32 GMT
Terrorism has a mindset that War or Police Actions try to avoid. Terrorist really don't care on who they hurt, they hurt out of convience. As for soldiers, they kill or injury to control the situation and they care who they hurt, except the bad guy, regardless on who the bad guy is.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Anslow on Jul 26, 2005 3:00:08 GMT
To fight for something you believe in, whether the odds are with you or not, as long as its true to the world, god and your heart (rather than someone else words, false vision or world) can be considered an act of bravery.
To fight because you are brain-washed is an act of stupidiy!
To fight just for the sake of it is an act of foolishness! (as is blowing yourself up ;D)
To not fight, when you know in your heart there is wrong doing and you can make a difference by your actions, is an act of cowardice!
To deliberatly attack innocents, who are not soldiers, who are not governments and have no decisions on who, what or whom go to war with whom is an act of terrorism!
Well, thats how my book reads!
Stuart
|
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 26, 2005 3:03:29 GMT
As for soldiers, they kill or injury to control the situation and they care who they hurt, except the bad guy, regardless on who the bad guy is. I guess that's how we figure out who the bad guy is right? |
|
|
|
Post by David Oddy on Jul 26, 2005 3:05:12 GMT
To fight because you are brain-washed is an act of stupidiy! To fight just for the sake of it is an act of foolishness! (as is blowing yourself up ;D) To not fight, when you know in your heart there is wrong doing and you can make a difference by your actions, is an act of cowardice! To deliberatly attack innocents, who are not soldiers, who are not governments and have no decisions on who, what or whom go to war with whom is an act of terrorism! Well, thats how my book reads! Stuart Sounds right to me... |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Catterall on Aug 6, 2005 16:04:21 GMT
I didn't read the previous board. Nor did I read the entirety of this thread but I get the impression you're reffering to the suicide bombers. Here's a scary one for you... These are normal people who will walk past you in the street, who will go to your shopping malls, homes, librarys, schools, cinema's and (ready?) dojo's.
One of the London bombers was known to do Ju-jitsu and play football, had a wife and kid, went to the pub with his mates and drank beer.
These people arn't evil. They have been manipulated by misguided, ignorant individuals who have mis-read the Kuran. Although their are some scary things within it the vast majority of Muslims are peacefull but it's approaching a pinnicle where it's going to be stand-up (against extreamism) or stand-by. IMO.
Misguided souls, not evil. Nothing is black and white IMO.
|
|
