Cowardice?

[Skuzzy]

It would have only made sense if the target had been a military one.  To do this, and do this intentionally, to a civilian populace is cowardice.  I cannot find any justification for this action, and I certainly cannot call who did it brave.
Beleive in all the causes you like, fight for them when they are in need of it, but to just murder thousands of people who could care less about your cause is flat out cowardice.
Our fellow countrymen and women who died today have no idea why they died.  They were cold-heartedly murdered.
I was in the military.  I knew any day could be the last.  I knew if my country was threatened I would be called to arms and would give my life to defend it.  These people had no idea, were not trained in this manner, and thier lives the lives of their families were ruined.
For what?  We don't even know why yet.  The cowards that did it will not jump up and claim they did it for thier cause.

Cowards.  No better defination for it than the events that took place today.

You are right, I took the most obvious meaning of courage in my example.  But, it does not take courage to murder people.  It takes courage to stand behind your beliefs and defend them when needed, but to agressively pursue murder takes no amount of courage.  There was no defense of any beliefs today.  There were no outraged voices from those who would stand by thier convictions.  There was only a cold hearted mass murder, which took zero amount of courage.

[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: Skuzzy ]

[Sandman]

I understand your point and it fits within the traditional sense of war.

War is basically about economics. Once you've decided to fully engage, then it's all about money. The USSR fully knows this lesson. We beat them at the bank.

These attacks were aimed at crippling one of our economic centers as well as our military center.

Granted... we're not dealing with a country. We're probably dealing with a group. A group that does not play by the rules of the Geneva convention nor to they care (or can they probably afford) to engage the U.S. in the traditional sense.

It certainly lacked honor.

[Olgzr3]

Sandman:  Don't confuse courage with hatred.
If you hate a country or a people enough you might be willing to give your life to achieve your ends.
If one of these terroist acts killed your family, would you give your life to get even? And doing so, would that make make you brave?

Olgzr

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Olgzr3:
Sandman:  Don't confuse courage with hatred.

and don't confuse it with stupidity either, these a-holes think they will be rewarded by ALLAH for their actions..

[Dmitry]

Terrorists indeed had a very well coordinated plan.. the one that takes years to implement... YEARS... my only 2 cents but to hijack 4 planes is not the matter of 1 months plan...

IMO they have personal working for them in those airline companies.. maybe even pilots were on their side... And they definatly were skilled in piloting aircrafts... FS2000 just wont do it...

[Dune]

My guess would be 50 to 100 terrorists involved in the planning and at least 3 to 4 for each plane.
 
You need at least 1 to pilot, perhaps 2 in case the first is incapacitated.  Then you need 1 or 2 to control the passengers while the pilot flies.
 
While it's true that airport security is hardly airtight, think of the planning it took to get all four teams in place.  We have not heard of any teams of terrorists who were prevented from getting onboard.  Until we do, we must assume that only 4 were planned and all 4 were successful.  
 
The amount of planning for something like this must be staggering.  They took planes from 2 different airlines and 2 (3?) different airports.  Each airline and each airport would have differences in security procedures which would have to be scouted thoroughly.
 
This has been in the works for months.  And it would be easy to just say that someone in the counter-terrorist community screwed the pooch.  However, the alternative is even more frightening.  What if they did their job? What if the bad guys either found a whole in the system or maintained such security that we had no way of seeing it?
 
Money, time, planning, skills to fly a 757, willingness to die, knowledge of airport security, coolness to get aboard the planes, timing and coordination in the extreme, and the list goes on.  This is not the work of a bunch of whackos with a cheap alarm clock and some dynamite.  This was a professionally done attack.

[Snoopi]

I don't think the perpetrators were cowards.
When you attack an enemy it is stupid to not attack his weak spot. Since a small group would have no chance to attack the U.S. if they landed with some tanks on U.S. soil, the small group attacks in any way they can with most effect.

And as to the "they must have had a lot of people to do this" theory.
I still think that 12 people could do it.
-They decide the target(s).
-They go on an internet travel site, and check which flights will approach the target near-simultaneously. (easy in the eastern U.S. with so much air traffic)
-They book the tickets
-They go to the "departure" cities
-they board the aircraft
-they hijack the aircraft with two guarding the passengers the other flying the aircraft
-the passengers don't attack them because the terrorists say "stay calm.. as long as no one fights us..no one gets hurt.."
(in the Pennsylvania aircraft, they fight and the terrorists crash the aircraft, by onboard explosion from what some reports have said)
-they crash the aircraft into the targets
 (passengers would realise the truth too late)

Depending on seat availablity.. it could be done in a few days by 12 people.
No need for a big international conspiracy.
Anyone one with MS Flight Sim could fly the aircraft enough to crash it into the targets.
A bunch of U.S. citizens like "McVeigh with brains" could have done it.

They were pros but there was no need for more than 12 people with knowledge and skill.

I once was on a holiday and went through the wrong doors and ended up outside the departure lounge in a hallway that led to the tarmac. I was able to get back inside without even having to go through the security area.

Not a nice thought at all...        

EDIT: BTW  Most Christians would be surprised at how similar Islam is to their religion. Hmmm.... Protestants killing Catholics even with the "thou shalt not kill". Read up and you will find the same "law" in the Koran.
Sorry but religion has nothing to do with it. Lunatics exist in every faith.

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Snoopi ]

[miko2d]

Get off his back guys.

 Belittling the enemy never helped anyone. Brilliant just means "intelligent" and "capable" - no moral connotations.
 The moral concepts you are using - "covardice", "honor" - are not applicable to their (terrorist's) culture. They have different moral values.

 One thing is certain. We have to become ferocious. We cannot get every terrorist grunt, but we may hold their governments hostages.
 Any government or leader should be afraid to give us a reason to suspect that it/he may be abetting terrorists. They and will be held personally responcible. Then we will have peace...

 miko

[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[-lynx-]

IMO they have personal working for them in those airline companies.. maybe even pilots were on their side... And they definatly were skilled in piloting aircrafts... FS2000 just wont do it...

 

Oh please... it takes 5 weeks and $3-5,000 to get a PPL in the States.

If during those 5 weeks you do FS2000 on the type of aircraft you plan to hijack you'll be more than qualified to not only to crash it into a building but with the aid of a handheld GPS receiver to fly it to wherever you want. FS2000 will cut it plenty

 

An act of terror IS cowardice. Committing suicide in order to "gain heaven" especially without a declaration of war by killing civilains is also the mark of a coward. They didn't try to take on those who could fight back. They chose to kill the helpless. Hardly the act of courage.

 

Mav - I'm with you on this one but you are applying "civilized" standards to it. F***king morons are at war - they declared it long time ago... They don't expect you to accept - you are a source of all evil, remember?  

They are cowards who don't deserve to be treated like humans - rabid dogs are exterminated, so should they be.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Pepe:

I honestly think this is the prelude of WWIII.

WWIII is started in the 50's the only difference is the weapon used which are not "conventional".

[Sandman]

A journalist says it better:

 

by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such. Nor are their acts of violence senseless. They have a very specific aim: to avenge alleged historical wrongs and to bring the great American satan to its knees.

[Toad]

NOt often that I agree with Sandman but he's right on two counts here.

First, his original statement was basically spot on.

Second, Krauthammer does say it more specifically.  

[batdog]

Warriors dont kill innocents. They massacared thousands who have no idea odds are of even what they where killed for. I do not view them as brave. I view them nor more "brave" than a rabid dog... they are unbalanced mentaly but hardly brave.

 Brave would be those indiv's on that flight that crashed that perhaps thwarted anthor attack.

 Once again... no matter what I simply refuse to pin ANY postive connotations upon these indivduals. I hope they, and any or all who support them will be made to pay dearly.

 xBAT

[Sandman]

These words aren't necessarily positive at all.

Courage describes a firmness of mind and will in the face of danger.

Nothing positive or morally superior inferred. Simply a measure of resolve.

Brilliance describes unusual mental keenness or alertness.

Again... no moral connotations.

The fact that these are bad people doesn't diminish their intelligence nor their firmness of mind.


Don't they teach english anymore?

[Maverick]

Sandman,

Outside of the partial definitions of those words you posted there is an emotional connotation to them in everyday language. Courage does indeed mean firmness of mind and resolve to face danger. But there has to be a rreason to face danger. Inflicting death on the helpless is not couragous. Using the helpless to strike a blow at the defenseless is not couragous.

Having firmness of mind and resolve to face death to protect others is courage. Causing death of innocents due to misguided ideology and belief is not courage.

People face death every single day they are alive. Inflicting it on others, even though it causes your own, for an evil purpose is not resolve.

You want to see courage. Look at the firefighters and police officers who RAN into danger to save others. Look at the medical personell, bystanders and others who went in harms way to help. THAT is courage.

Suicide is cowardice. Suicide for selfish reasons such as a way to "earn heaven" (in spite of the koran's teaching of love for your fellow man) is cowardice. Killing or attacking the helpless with no warning or using them as shields is cowardice.

I could go on here. I know you may not agree with me but I have no respect for those who support this type of act or belief.

I have faced people who were bent on hurting others for selfish reasons. To compare them to people who display REAL acts of courage by shielding the innocent is offensive.

Mav