Huge disconnect between (1) jihadists are cowards and (2) we must adjust our lives and undertake endless war in response. Cowards don’t take on the world’s premier power, and threats would make them fold. Accurate assessment of the enemy is essential to effective strategy.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is cowardly because they waged their attack primarily against unarmed innocents.
-
I think you're right that that's the underlying logic. But it fundamentally misunderstands warfare, especially the modern variety. For example, I wouldn't call American pilots that attacked civilian areas in WWII cowards.
-
WW2 pilots operated under an official war declaration in identified military aircraft, and often dropped warning pamphlets in those civilian areas beforehand. 9/11 was more like a suicide bombing in a Jerusalem market on a much larger scale, which is why described as "cowardly."
-
This is the distinction Bill Maher was trying to acknowledge in 2001, and we understand it, but it didn't fly for him because people expect in war to face one's enemy. Of course we are now forced to adjust to the reality that this is not the threat the USA will face going forward
-
I think you’ve moved from discussing cowardice to discussing legitimacy or morality. Also, bin Laden declared war in 1996. He didn’t run a state, so it’s not exactly the same, but the declaration is there.
-
They are inherently tied. If a bomber were to blow himself up in the middle of nowhere, alone, he wouldn't be described as a coward. Useless maybe, but not that. That they conceal their intent to kill innocents so that they cannot be met with appropriate force is the issue.
-
Anyhoo, I didn't get up this morning to get into an argument over the connotation of the word with you. Have a good day, and as always,
#NeverForget. -
I don't really want to argue about it either. This is a solemn day I take seriously. I hope you have a good day as well.
#NeverForget
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly! The hijackers involved might have been brainwashed and willing to commit evil for a misguided purpose but there was nothing cowardly about it. Calling them cowards reveals no desire or ability to understand their motivations and continues the cycle of terrorism.
-
Willing to commit evil, yes. Brainwashed, no. All the evidence I'm aware of indicates they knew what they were doing, knew why they were doing it, and did it willingly.
-
I am not speaking brainwashed as forced or unaware of what they were doing but a more connotative meaning of believing an irrational and rigid religious belief system which justified their actions to themselves. I would say Evangelicals who support Trump are brainwashed too.
-
I wouldn’t use the word “brainwashed” that way, but I understand your point.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Watch out, the network may pull your show and then you will be out of work for years until HBO picks you up.
-
Sorry, I’m not getting the reference. Mind explaining?
-
I think it’s a Bill Mahar reference. Mahar got in hot water back in 2001/2002 for saying that the terrorists weren’t cowards and that actually the US was being cowardly, firing missles from a safe distance.
-
Ah, thanks. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t call people who fire missiles cowards either.
-
He did not say exactly that. But it was a brave thing for him to say it on ABC that those ppl may be everything but not cowards at the time when W had approval rating of 90% and world class a*hole
@AriFleischer from WH podium insisting that ppl must watch what they were saying
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It was a series of soft targets. That's not guts.
-
Think a bit about the immense psychological burden of entering a country, living for months or even years while plotting, knowing that one mistake by you or any of a few dozen others leads to severe punishment. That's one reason why larger-scale terrorism is rare. It's hard.
-
I'm not saying it isn't hard. But thats like sayibf the Golden State Killer had guts. Nah.
-
Serial killers and terrorists are quite different. Both kill, and both usually target civilians. But the former is acting out a personal fantasy, fulfilling a personal craving. Terrorists are political, and usually see themselves as heroes acting on behalf of others.
-
Difficulty, duration, and physical risk. Targeting vulnerable populations. Casing and prepping the scene. Making sure authorities know. If you call that physical bravery, or guts, the motive doesnt matter. And both serial killers and terrorist share it. I disagree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.