May I suggest the term "dastards"
From: "Frank Theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You're right, the use of the word "coward" may have been ill-advised. The
> terrorists - whoever they are - no doubt believe that they attacked
legitimate
> military targets. No different, they would suppose, than the fire-storms
that
> the Allies caused in Dresden, Nuremburg, Tokyo, and no different than the
> "collateral damage" caused by the dropping of two A-bombs on innocent
people in
> Japan, etc, etc.
>
> I guess, however, that my thought is that anyone who attacks and kills
innocent
> civilians is a coward. No chance for the civilians to defend themselves,
or
> even react in any way. Sort of like when we were kids; it was considered
> cowardly to "sucker-punch" someone, even if the perpetrator had a good
reason to
> flatten the victim.. If you're going to fight, make it fair, give the
other
> party a chance to defend themselves.
>
> Today's terrorists didn't do that. That, in my mind, is why I think of
them as
> cowards.
>
> "Lewis, Gerald" wrote:
>
> > When an amercan serviceman throws himself on a granade to save his
buddies
> > we do not call him a coward, or when an american sericeman willingly
puts
> > him/her self in the line of fire and dies defending their country we do
not
> > call them cowards. These terrorists, likewise, were not cowards... they
> > willingly attacked what they believed was their enemy and willingly and
with
> > the anticipation of eternal life as a martyr proceeded to commit such an
> > atrocity and ensuring their death. They may be many things, but coward
is
> > not one of them. It is this misunderstanding of their radical, evem for
> > Islamics, cultural and religious beliefs that continue to make us
> > underestimate their resolve and resources.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
