At least 83 people killed in Egyptian blasts

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Jul 23 2005, 06:54 PM
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?

The difference is that Al Qaeda fighters, unlike civilians, have the ability to fight back.

I do think the word "coward", like the word "hero"; isway over used these days. Certainly, it take an amount of bravery to choose to die for a cause no matter how misguided or unrespectable that cause is.

[Clarkey]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jul 23 2005, 06:40 PM

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?

Don't put words into my mouth. How do you know what killings I do or do not lament. I didn't even start this topic, I just responded to it.

Let's face it, a tragedy happened, and you tried to minimalize it by whining about the definition of a word. Silly.

Apologizing for suicide bombers does not look good on you. Reading your posts, I can tell that you are well educated and articulate, just use a little more tact next time.

On a side note, did you study logic or something?

[Agamemnon]

Don't put words into my mouth. How do you know what killings I do or do not lament. I didn't even start this topic, I just responded to it.

Well, if you do honestly look at every bombing/atrocity in the world and feel real compassion for these people, then my mistake. Though, I've a hunch you saw the thread, and added a comment (as you say). 2 different things. Are you sending flowers to Egypt? No? Then I guess we're in the same boat.

Let's face it, a tragedy happened, and you tried to minimalize it by whining about the definition of a word. Silly.

I intended no such minimization. I pointed out several times that killing innocent civilians is wrong, as I see it. My beef was with the terminology being used. If you think this terminology is not important, then why keep debating this? I think it's very important how 'we' regard 'our enemies'. I'm not attacking you, or saying terrorism = good, I'm commenting on the use of the word 'coward'. If you don't want to talk about your use of the word, then don't.

Apologizing for suicide bombers does not look good on you. Reading your posts, I can tell that you are well educated and articulate, just use a little more tact next time.

Never apologized for a suicide bomber in my life. Saying that I have is an outright lie, and attempt to degrade my position (typically) by claiming I'm some leftist-terrorist-supporting-extremist. This isn't the case. As for tact... this coming from the person who said I'm a 'weenie' and that I am 'whining'. Right. I certainly think one of us could use 'tact' lessons...

On a side note, did you study logic or something?

I have degrees in Political Science and History.

[Resolute 14]

I dont believe Agamemnon's arguing on the word was an attempt at trivializing what happened in Egypt today. It certantly was taking the topic on a tangent, but I fail to see how arguing the terminology used to describe the killers constitutes trivializing what happened.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jul 23 2005, 03:18 PM
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).

So you're willing to call them evil, but you take offense to others labelling them as cowards?

I think I'd rather be called a coward than evil.

What exactly is your point? That when people call terrorists cowards they are falling into line with the 'Bushies'? Not sure I get what your beef is.

[FireFly]

I think the idea is that is you call a crazy with a gun a coward, he's likely to shoot you for it. If you call him evil, you would probably not get the same response.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FireFly@Jul 24 2005, 05:27 AM
I think the idea is that is you call a crazy with a gun a coward, he's likely to shoot you for it. If you call him evil, you would probably not get the same response.

Are you kidding me, and especially with thes nutcases. If your unarmed and 10 years old and call them a coward they'll shoot them. If your unarmed, and a 80 year old grandmother and call them evil they'll shoot you. Or maybe they'll just sneak onto your bus and blow it up so they don't have to face you.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Looger@Jul 23 2005, 04:22 PM
"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.

I can see where are you coming from, but still, this is a false reprehension and false high moral ground.

How can you say nobody cares about terror in Congo, Sudan etc.? I remember very well that this has been discussed on this board. This world is full of misery; people die because of wars, diseases, hunger. But it is impossible of every individual to mourn every loss of life. You wouldn’t be doing anything else and soon you would go crazy. Not to mention it wouldn’t change anything, it wouldn’t help those people. What do you want us to do to stop killings in Africa? I read few days ago that Mugabe was almost bankrupt so he asked South Africa for monetary help. Well guess what, South African government handed him over billion US dollars. We can talk about it here till we are blue in face but the point is that until Africans themselves kick their own corrupt regimes in the nuts nothing will change. They have to take matters into their own hands.

However, those bombings in London, Madrid etc. are directly concerning us. Call it arrogant, ignorant, egoistical, whatever. I call it self-preservation instinct. So climb down off that high horse cowboy. It is easy to point out that people in the West are more concerned with dozens of dead in London than with thousands of dead in Zimbabwe. However, they are simply more concerned with their own safety and safety of their families. Does that mean they don’t care when more people die in Africa? I don’t think so. It is morally wrong not to care when people die thousands miles away but it is downright stupid and suicidal not to care when people die at your doorsteps.

[Looger]

Flame Of Liberty,

i hope for your sake, and the people you see yourself entwined to, that you figure out some cause-and-effect here.

not invading iraq put us someplace that the UK is not. in danger from islamic extremists that when we get right down to it, are the fringe elements, or point men if you will, of the collective arab fury at the west's continuing occupation and expl-oil-tation.

egypt has had more-or-less unrelated trouble with islamic extremists, and the muslim brotherhood, since the end of ww2, for their own very specific reasons and ugly repression and crackdowns. last i heard canada wasn't sending the corrupt and undemocratic regime in egypt 3 BILLION dollars a year in military aid, but hey, what the hell do i know.

and for the record, i agree that africa must solve africa's problems. south africa's involvement with zimbabwe and mugabe is not as cut and dry as you might think, indeed SA is heavily involved in the politics of many countries in the region and has been for a long, long time. who knows exactly why they sent that aid, but hey, who knows exactly why french weapons shipments continued into rwanda during the genocide.

and in that very vein, the united states and britain cannot solve iraq's problems, in fact they seem to have created a terrorist country where one did not previously exist. the very idea that people think they're there to 'fight the good fight' is indeed the very reason they are being attacked by terrorists.

figure this out, right now, or be ready for a long fight that cannot possibly end.

canada is not completely guiltless in all this, but we need not be part of the deepening problems.

and we are not on target lists, because of this.

So climb down off that high horse cowboy

wow, personal attacks.

haven't seen that on this board for having a different opinion.

brilliant stuff.