At least 83 people killed in Egyptian blasts

[Flame Of Liberty]

"At least 83 people have been killed and scores more wounded in bomb attacks in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh.

An explosion in the Old Market area was followed by two blasts in the Naama Bay area, where a car bomb tore off the front of the Ghazala Gardens Hotel.

Most of the dead are Egyptians, although foreign nationals are among the victims, officials said.

The attack - the worst in Egypt in recent history - comes months after 34 people died in an attack in Sinai.

In a statement posted on an Islamic website, a group calling itself the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, al-Qaeda, in Syria and Egypt, said it carried out the bombings, the Associated Press news agency reported, although the claim has not been verified."

Link

Where is this world heading? This is truly insane.

[Regulator75]

I am totally sickened by these coward terrorist attacks. :angry: :angry: :angry:

May they all burn in HELL.

[Agamemnon]

Wow, the 'coward' word comes out a lot these days with the terrorists.

I recall John Stewart remarking on his show once (I believe arguing a Republican policy-maker?) about this term. Stewart claimed (so shoot him if you don't like it, not me) that it takes a lot more 'courage' to suicide fly a plane into an office-building than to fly an F-15 and drop a bomb on a wedding cerimony from beyond visual range (or nearly).

I think terrorist actions are reprehensible and wrong. Any taking of life by anyone not in self-defense is wrong. Killing for political/economic/cultural objectives is wrong. However, emotionally ascribing names to 'our enemies', like 'coward', seems to be injecting a lot of partisanship into the equation.

It kind of reminds me of Bugs and Daffy killing 'Japs' in the 1940's, with their huge buck teeth, intensely slanted eyes, and such. We create an image of this enemy as being exactly what we want them to be (in this case, cowardly).

Are the terrorists evil people? Probably definitely. Are they 'cowards'? I guess that's an emotional judgement call each of us makes for ourselves. It sounds like rhetoric to me (hopefully that doesn't mean I love them, but I'm sure I'll get roasted as such).

[Looger]

"the madness continues"

terror attacks happen all over the world, all the time, and it didn't just start in 2001.

suddenly they all get reported here, at least when it's somewhere of interest anyway.

terror in colombia, sudan, congo, bah meaningless, i mean the death counts are way higher so who cares.

[Clarkey]

Wow, the 'coward' word comes out a lot these days with the terrorists.

I recall John Stewart remarking on his show once (I believe arguing a Republican policy-maker?) about this term. Stewart claimed (so shoot him if you don't like it, not me) that it takes a lot more 'courage' to suicide fly a plane into an office-building than to fly an F-15 and drop a bomb on a wedding cerimony from beyond visual range (or nearly).

I think terrorist actions are reprehensible and wrong. Any taking of life by anyone not in self-defense is wrong. Killing for political/economic/cultural objectives is wrong. However, emotionally ascribing names to 'our enemies', like 'coward', seems to be injecting a lot of partisanship into the equation.

It kind of reminds me of Bugs and Daffy killing 'Japs' in the 1940's, with their huge buck teeth, intensely slanted eyes, and such. We create an image of this enemy as being exactly what we want them to be (in this case, cowardly).

Are the terrorists evil people? Probably definitely. Are they 'cowards'? I guess that's an emotional judgement call each of us makes for ourselves. It sounds like rhetoric to me (hopefully that doesn't mean I love them, but I'm sure I'll get roasted as such).

This is really a great time to argue semantics.

I know you get a kick out of playing devil's advocate but try to use some more tact next time.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Jul 23 2005, 03:23 PM
This is really a great time to argue semantics.

I know you get a kick out of playing devil's advocate but try to use some more tact next time.

this is the

ADOPTED ANGST

of which i speak.

before september 11th most people 'posting in protest' couldn't have given a damn aboot people dying on the other side of the world in terror attacks,

now people are convinced that they're all related to one core group of terrorists, and 'we're all in this together, all for democracy'

give me a break.

if you've conciously decided to care, you wouldn't have cared before.

'caring' in this case is only helping the agenda of those that want to re-make the middle east in their own image, which, paradoxically, is the EXACT reason for increased terror in that region.

so keep caring.

because,

you're helping!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Jul 23 2005, 03:23 PM
This is really a great time to argue semantics.

I know you get a kick out of playing devil's advocate but try to use some more tact next time.

Maybe it's not the best time to be ascribing the term 'coward' to 'our enemies' either.

If you think using emotionally charged terms consistently to de-humanize or create an image of 'our enemies' is 'semantics'... well, I differ.

Tragic loss of life. Aren't they all? When was the last '12 people killed in Iraq' thread? US soldiers, sure, but Iraqi civilians? Non-existant. It's not like we're a reverant lot here, bemoaning the loss of life everywhere. We're selective. You don't automatically own the moral highground here.

[Clarkey]

Oh but you do have a monopoly on what's right? pfft

Ok we get it, you hate the States and resent them for Iraq. It doesn't mean you have to keep bringing it up.

Keep patting yourself on the back while you stand on your soap box all alone there bud.

Are you some kind of cultural relativist? Suicide bombers are brave and just if they believe they are right.

People who randomly kill innocent civilians on all corners of the globe are scum and so are the people who try to justify what they do.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Jul 23 2005, 04:06 PM
Ok we get it, you hate the States and resent them for Iraq. It doesn't mean you have to keep bringing it up.

why shouldn't this be brought up?

http://www.rense.com/general67/terr.htm

The increase in incidents in Iraq is dramatic. In 2002 there were 14 incidents in Iraq. In 2004, the first full year of occupation, there were 790 incidents, and in the first half of 2005, incidents in Iraq numbered 883. Iraq appeared to be on a path to more than double the 2004 incident rate. In effect, the invasion of Iraq has become the world's principal terrorism generator.

nah,

must be coincidence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Are suicide bombers cowards, absolutely, it dosen't take a brave man to go into a soft target like a market, or a bus or a bar filled with Woman and children and pull the cord, its akin to sitting outside of a preschool with a AK-47 and shooting pre-schoolers. They're going after targets with no chance of fighting back. Now you can bitch about the American's dropping bombs on innocent Iraqi's but the bottom line is that they are not going out of thier way to waste woman and children, and try to avoid collateral damage where ever they can. If the American's were going out of thier way to harm civilians, then that incident report would be a lot higher then it is. If the American's wanted to fight a ruthless war on terror, they would use long range artillary to level towns and villages where the terrorists and insurgents are hiding, kinda like what the Soviets did in Afganistan, where they tried to win the heards and minds by carpet bombing villages, killing everyone that they could, then they would snatch up the young survivors for "Re-education"

It dosen't take a brave man to hide among innocents when the bomb is coming in, because you know that your mission is accomplished, because you know that innocents are going to die promoting your political aims.

Its cowardly to intentionally avoid facing off against trained soldiers so you can strike at civilians.

Its cowardly to kill yourself while killing dozens or hundreds, because you know that you won't have to live with your concience, or live with the ramifications of your actions.

It isn't a brave man who snatches a civilian off of the streeet, and then saws his head off with a knife while acting tough on a webcam.

It takes a coward to make excuses and hide behind god's name when you kill innocent civilians.


They're cowards, period, and thrill killers period.

I'm just not onside with anyone who describes these people as anything less.

[Looger]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jul 23 2005, 04:14 PM
Now you can bitch about the American's dropping bombs on innocent Iraqi's but they bottom line is that they are not going out of thier way to waste woman and children, and try to avoid collateral damage where ever they can.

hmmmm....

so because they don't try and kill as many as they can, it shouldn't matter?

i fail to see the point here.

dead civilians are dead civilians.

the manner in which they are killed is quite meaningless because they are defenseless, period.

that being said, dropping bombs on them is a few steps up the cowardly chain then looking them in the eye and taking them with you.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jul 23 2005, 08:18 AM
Wow, the 'coward' word comes out a lot these days with the terrorists.

I recall John Stewart remarking on his show once (I believe arguing a Republican policy-maker?) about this term. Stewart claimed (so shoot him if you don't like it, not me) that it takes a lot more 'courage' to suicide fly a plane into an office-building than to fly an F-15 and drop a bomb on a wedding cerimony from beyond visual range (or nearly).

I think terrorist actions are reprehensible and wrong. Any taking of life by anyone not in self-defense is wrong. Killing for political/economic/cultural objectives is wrong. However, emotionally ascribing names to 'our enemies', like 'coward', seems to be injecting a lot of partisanship into the equation.

It kind of reminds me of Bugs and Daffy killing 'Japs' in the 1940's, with their huge buck teeth, intensely slanted eyes, and such. We create an image of this enemy as being exactly what we want them to be (in this case, cowardly).

Are the terrorists evil people? Probably definitely. Are they 'cowards'? I guess that's an emotional judgement call each of us makes for ourselves. It sounds like rhetoric to me (hopefully that doesn't mean I love them, but I'm sure I'll get roasted as such).

While I agree with you in principle, it is human nature.

This is, in reality, a war. In war you tend to dehumanize your enemy. I guess it makes it psycologically easier to kill them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Looger+Jul 23 2005, 04:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Jul 23 2005, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Jul 23 2005, 04:14 PM
Now you can bitch about the American's dropping bombs on innocent Iraqi's but they bottom line is that they are not going out of thier way to waste woman and children, and try to avoid collateral damage where ever they can.

hmmmm....

so because they don't try and kill as many as they can, it shouldn't matter?

i fail to see the point here.

dead civilians are dead civilians.

the manner in which they are killed is quite meaningless because they are defenseless, period.

that being said, dropping bombs on them is a few steps up the cowardly chain then looking them in the eye and taking them with you. [/b][/quote]
There's a big difference between going out of your way to kill innocents, and having it happen by having it happen through a mistake or a technology failure, ask any trial lawyer and he'll tell you.

Yes a dead civilian is a dead civilian, but a terror bomber dosen't have to live with his actions, and that certainly makes it easier for him to perform his act. Ask any soldier out there, and his number one fear is that he's going to kill an innocent, and for the most part the ones that have live with guilt for the rest of thier lives (obviously with some exceptions) ask any terrorist and they'll roll in the murder of innocents like a pig in fresh mud.


On your last statement, I see your point, but I don't see it at the same time. Looking into the eye's of a 5 year old, or a 8 year old woman, or a 80 year old man before you murder them is far worse to me, it makes your a pychopath not brave, because if you can look into the eyes of a victim and still pull the string, that makes you below human. Somebody who drops on a bomb on a terrorist enclave with woman and children in it, may not be the bravest thing in the world, but its not like they're drawing a crosshair on woman and children. When a bomb goes wide and drops into a wedding party, thats a failure of technology and not a failure of humanity.

[Agamemnon]

Intentionally killing innocent civilians is evil.

Running away from a fight is cowardly.

Evil does not automatically = cowardly, no matter how many times we claim it does.

This is a misapplication of the term, for the purposes of emotionally margnilizing 'the enemy'. In order to fight the 'war on terror' (talk about charged terminology), calm, cool heads should prevail. It's unfortunate that instead, we're more focused on whipping ourselves into a frenzy of hatred of our enemy, with the historically tried-and-true method; re: the bugs/daffy cartoons of the 1940's. We put out what we need to be true, not necessarily what is true.

An above poster claimed that this is an aspect of war, and he's right. Does it mean it _always_ has to be this way? So far... yep, it does. Too bad.

All I'm trying to point out is, it's dangerous to label the 'enemy' with these terms. We should be realists, not idealists. This is a political/economic/social war, not a clash of civilizations. There are no fundamentally correct terms we can use to describe thousands of people, whether they want to kill us or not, beyond 'them' or 'they'.

But that's my opinion, and I'm certainly entitled to it as much as you are the opposite. I'm not in the majority, of that I'm well aware.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jul 23 2005, 09:40 AM
There's a big difference between going out of your way to kill innocents, and having it happen by having it happen through a mistake or a technology failure, ask any trial lawyer and he'll tell you.

Ag's point wasn't about killing on purpose vs. accidently or innocents vs. enemy combatants.

His point, if I can boil it down to one line, is that you can't be a coward and be willing to give up your life for a cause you believe in at the same time.

Yes I disagree with their cause, and yes targeting and killing civilians is reprehensible, but those are completely seperate things.

And for one final point on a different issue: it's not uncommon for all militaries, including the US, to attack targets that they know full well contain civilians i they feel it's worth it to achieve a particular goal. They refer to it as acceptable collateral damage (or something very similar). It's not always accidental or a mistake.

[Agamemnon]

Oh but you do have a monopoly on what's right? pfft

Well, that would clearly be putting words in my mouth, wouldn't it? You basically dismissed me as 'wrong', inherently. I suggested that you're not necessarily right just because you say you are, though, I doubt you'll ever understand that.

Ok we get it, you hate the States and resent them for Iraq. It doesn't mean you have to keep bringing it up.

I love the States. I watch their TV, eat their food, and hang out with their people. They're in many ways the same as us, our goals, fears, and attributes are very similar.

I challenge you to find the last post I've made with anything to do with Iraq. I don't resent them for Iraq, because I'm not personally losing anything over it. They stand to lose a lot from it, and I'd prefer to see the States prosper rather than suffer, as I realize that our future is intimately connected to theirs. Another thing I doubt you'll ever understand.

Keep patting yourself on the back while you stand on your soap box all alone there bud.

Typical wishful thinking. If you think I'm alone... well, here's another thing you probably won't ever understand. I'm not alone (take a look at the thread.. and maybe the part of the world that doesn't agree with you).

Are you some kind of cultural relativist? Suicide bombers are brave and just if they believe they are right.

People who randomly kill innocent civilians on all corners of the globe are scum and so are the people who try to justify what they do.

So, why can't we say 'people who kill innocent civilians are criminals and should be arrested'? Why do we have to say, 'they're cowardly scum and deserve horrible deaths'? Don't you see the difference between those? Is the first wrong, and the second right? Why ascribe terminology to them that serves no real purpose (beyond developing intense domestic hatred), and isn't necessarily 'always true'? I'm not saying what the truth is (beyond killing = bad), but I AM saying that you don't necessarily represent all facets of it, just because you say so.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mike F@Jul 23 2005, 06:04 PM
His point, if I can boil it down to one line, is that you can't be a coward and be willing to give up your life for a cause you believe in at the same time.

To be fair, this was Bill Maher's point (thanks Fotze)

[Clarkey]

I'm not going to debate philosophy with you.

My original point was that you showed weenie tendencies for trivializing a horrible senseless loss of life by debating the meaning of a word.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Jul 23 2005, 06:31 PM
I'm not going to debate philosophy with you.

My original point was that you showed weenie tendencies for trivializing a horrible senseless loss of life by debating the meaning of a word.

And you show hypocritical tendancies by choosing to lament one set of killings, and yet being totally quiet on identical sets. Do you post threads on every bombing that goes down? As Looger pointed out, plenty of atrocities happen everyday, I don't see you out crusading for them as well.

Your use of the word 'weenie' certainly goes a long way in detracting from any authority/respect you may have had on this issue.

The word 'coward' is emotionally charged. This makes it more than a word. You don't see this?

[Patek23]

I have a question, say (I know this would never happen) but the only way to take out a al queda base is to send in a suicide bomber (obviously american) and he goes in there and blows the base to smitherens, does that make him a coward?