QUESTION: Why do we call terrorists "cowardly?" A coward would never have the guts to act. Shouldn't we be condemning their audacity and arrogance instead?
it's from when they attack civilian targets who cannot properly defend themselves.
i'm on the fence about what happened this week as both were horrible but both instances they were military targets rather than civilian. had the second on parliament hill gone further against politicians i could see a stronger label for such an action.
The soldier killed in Ottawa (Nathan Cirillo) was unarmed. He was a ceremonial guard with no live ammo. He was shot in the back. I'd say that's pretty cowardly. Not sure about the details on the other one but I think he was rammed into by another vehicle. These guys expected to be targeted when they are serving abroad, not in their own backyards.
@3.a Not sure what being unarmed and at home has to do with anything. The man was an active soldier with the defense department. When you sign the paper you sign your life over to the state and essentially become state property.
I personally don't think either events were terrorist attacks.
What 3 said, but also the idea is that adopting violence is ultimately a cowardly move, as it avoids the greater difficulty of figuring how to live with ideological enemies
any Jews that fought back against Nazis were cowards, don't you know? adopting violence is cowardly, they should have just peacefully lived in the ghettos and then concentration camps and then ovens.
For attack unarmed soldiers who weren't on active duty? If anything those attacks will only bolster support for Western attacks against groups like ISIS.
The same reason they call bullies cowards...
ReplyDeletea fundamental misunderstanding of the abuse and trauma that the 'aggressor' suffered to cause them to act in such a manner?
Deletei dont know if coward is the right word, but also, i wouldn't use audacity or arrogance
ReplyDeletei would rather just refer to them as scum
scum.
Deletepond scum!
that we should blow up!
yeah! WHO'S THE TERRORIST NOW, SCUM?
it's from when they attack civilian targets who cannot properly defend themselves.
ReplyDeletei'm on the fence about what happened this week as both were horrible but both instances they were military targets rather than civilian. had the second on parliament hill gone further against politicians i could see a stronger label for such an action.
The soldier killed in Ottawa (Nathan Cirillo) was unarmed. He was a ceremonial guard with no live ammo. He was shot in the back. I'd say that's pretty cowardly. Not sure about the details on the other one but I think he was rammed into by another vehicle. These guys expected to be targeted when they are serving abroad, not in their own backyards.
Deletewhy is it cowardly to only fight when and how your enemy expects you to?
Delete@3.a Not sure what being unarmed and at home has to do with anything. The man was an active soldier with the defense department. When you sign the paper you sign your life over to the state and essentially become state property.
DeleteI personally don't think either events were terrorist attacks.
What 3 said, but also the idea is that adopting violence is ultimately a cowardly move, as it avoids the greater difficulty of figuring how to live with ideological enemies
ReplyDeleteany Jews that fought back against Nazis were cowards, don't you know? adopting violence is cowardly, they should have just peacefully lived in the ghettos and then concentration camps and then ovens.
DeleteI think violence is pretty ballsy. Stupid yes, but you have to have a ton of confidence to do it. I say good on em for doing what they did.
ReplyDeleteFor attack unarmed soldiers who weren't on active duty? If anything those attacks will only bolster support for Western attacks against groups like ISIS.
Delete