(09-13-2020, 10:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 07:00 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
But the acts themselves can be, without reserve, characterized as cowardly.
Why?
The same reason it's cowardly to hit someone from behind, to shoot up a "gun free except for me" zone, or to pick on someone smaller than you.
(09-13-2020, 10:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 07:00 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
But the acts themselves can be, without reserve, characterized as cowardly.
Why?
Killing civilians en masse while masquerading as one of them is not defined as bravery. There's a reason that militaries the world over, including the U.S., immediately execute enemy soldiers caught wearing their uniforms for the purpose of attack.
Look, Marty, if you want to lay flowers on the graves of these scum in recognition of their 'bravery', go for it. But their acts constituted cowardice to its very core.
Marty mourning terrorists. Where did this all go wrong....
(09-13-2020, 10:38 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 10:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Why?
Killing civilians en masse while masquerading as one of them is not defined as bravery. There's a reason that militaries the world over, including the U.S., immediately execute enemy soldiers caught wearing their uniforms for the purpose of attack.
Ummm, caught "not" wearing maybe?
(09-13-2020, 12:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 10:38 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Killing civilians en masse while masquerading as one of them is not defined as bravery. There's a reason that militaries the world over, including the U.S., immediately execute enemy soldiers caught wearing their uniforms for the purpose of attack.
Ummm, caught "not" wearing maybe?
An enemy combatant caught wearing the uniform of their enemy.
(09-13-2020, 12:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 10:38 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Killing civilians en masse while masquerading as one of them is not defined as bravery. There's a reason that militaries the world over, including the U.S., immediately execute enemy soldiers caught wearing their uniforms for the purpose of attack.
Ummm, caught "not" wearing maybe?
I didn't describe that well. Example, if American military find an enemy military wearing an American uniform, it's up against the wall.
(09-13-2020, 12:56 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 12:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ummm, caught "not" wearing maybe?
I didn't describe that well. Example, if American military find an enemy military wearing an American uniform, it's up against the wall.
Got it.
The suicide aspect of it is also cowardly.
Staging a massive surprise attack against civilians isn't necessarily cowardly, but if you arrange it so that you won't be alive to face any retaliation, it is definitely.
Thoses hijackers' brains became mush at the moment of impact. None of them had to face the flames.
Why is this so hard to comprehend? The reason they were cowards is because instead of presenting themselves as identifiable warriors on a field of battle, they used deception to slaughter civilians, including children, in grisly and terrifying fashion. THAT IS NOT BRAVERY.
(09-13-2020, 05:39 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this so hard to comprehend? The reason they were cowards is because instead of presenting themselves as identifiable warriors on a field of battle, they used deception to slaughter civilians, including children, in grisly and terrifying fashion. THAT IS NOT BRAVERY.
I agree with your example, that anyone who attempts to deceive a regular army by putting on its uniform before attacking cannot be taken prisoner, but must be immediately killed. But I don't agree that this type of behavior is the opposite of bravery. In fact, if your cause is right in the main, the tactic of blending in with your enemy becomes acceptable when under duress. Although you won't find it in many war anthologies, you do see it in fiction. Remember Luke and Han put on stormtrooper outfits to complete their raid.
(09-13-2020, 10:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 07:00 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
But the acts themselves can be, without reserve, characterized as cowardly.
Why?
When you target civilians instead of a military force you are most definitely a coward. When the battle comes to you and you use women and children as human "shields" you are most definitely a coward. It's not hard to understand.
(09-13-2020, 10:41 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Marty mourning terrorists. Where did this all go wrong....
This is exactly why you should be ignored, you can't read. Marty may be right or wrong about terrorists not being cowards, in no way was he mourning them.
(09-13-2020, 09:46 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 10:41 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Marty mourning terrorists. Where did this all go wrong....
This is exactly why you should be ignored, you can't read. Marty may be right or wrong about terrorists not being cowards, in no way was he mourning them.
Lionizing would be a better word.
I understand Marty's point. But is that a hill he really wants to fight and die upon?
Some things are better left unsaid.
(09-13-2020, 09:46 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-13-2020, 10:41 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Marty mourning terrorists. Where did this all go wrong....
This is exactly why you should be ignored, you can't read. Marty may be right or wrong about terrorists not being cowards, in no way was he mourning them.
I don't coddle or put terrorists on a pedestal, especially in a thread honoring 9/11.
Like biscuit said, taking the MikeSez "I will argue EVERYTHING" stance on this is a terrible look.
Ignore me if you must.