Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Courageous in the same way cruise missiles are courageous? Who would they face...bust into the White House and square off with George Bush? I would argue - as have others - that it takes more courage to fly a plane kamikaze style into the side of the building than it does to fire a cruise missile or to drop bombs from a stealth bomber. These guys were definitely not lacking courage.
I get what you're saying, but it isn't practical and they didn't have the means to raise an army and invade the shores of the USA and occupy its cities. If they wanted to fight back against the USA, they found a very cheap and effective way to do it. I'm not defending them, just saying that there is method to their madness.
|
I don't find anything they did courageous. It's cowardly, and absolutely nothing else. Courageous would have been for them to rise into a credible, political sphere of influence and change things through pens and paper - not weapons. Destroying innocent lives to futher your own agenda is ignorant and pathetic at best. And by the way, that does go for both sides.
And of course there's a method to their madness, absolutely. Doesn't make it right whatsoever. Just because someone does it first, doesn't mean it should be in retaliation. And striking the World Trade Centers isn't a strike against the govnerment and foreign policy they so detest; if so, they would have gone for only government targers. Hitting the WTC's is a symbolic strike against the citizens and the American way of life.