I'm curious how you see this as doing everyone else a disservice. Terrorists are criminals, and it is important to understand as much as possible about criminals in order to have the best chance of stopping them from engaging in criminal acts. The biggest advantage you can give to an adversary is underestimating him or her.
Only because I posted a link before, then posted another link saying the first link was wrong, do I now post a third link, saying the first link was right, to a point. (confused logic!) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57579736/authorities-question-saudi-national-in-boston-attack/ He's not a suspect, yet. He could very well have just been in the area, and the guy who tackled him could have jumped to conclusions. And may I say that as someone who did not vote for our current president and have no real love for him, that I'm proud of his statement and like the firm tones warning not to jump to conclusions. There were people on the news speculating wildly already and nothing good can come out of that kind of reporting.
In my opinion, it is not an act of bravery because they are engaging in a type of warfare, but they are going after the general public rather than the military. By definition then, a terrorist cannot be brave because they engaged the weak, untrained, and unsuspecting, rather than engaging those that have the training and ability to strike back quickly and decisively. (and yes, if it was an empty plane that struck the pentagon, and no other attacks happened on 9-11, I would not consider that terrorism. It'd be an act of war by a terrorist organization labeled as such due to their other activities).
So, you consider bravery to be limited to situations where someone engages someone of similar skill level in some sort of duel? Is it therefore not brave for someone afraid of needles to take a vaccine? Or push someone from the path of an oncoming vehicle? If the plane had no pilot, but was rather controlled remotely, and was therefore completely empty, yet still struck the pentagon and killed a bunch of people there, you would not consider that terrorism?
Brave person(s), murders civilians and an 8 year old. I guess all the school shooting massacres were brave acts too? (sarcasm) Maybe murdering civilian people who hasn't done much are always done by the brave? What do you think Liz?
There is no bravery in murdering unarmed, innocent civilians anonymously, just because they are more accessible than policymakers and enforcers. People who overcome fear for a selfless act, or even for a self-preserving act, are indeed brave. But I maintain that striking out at targets merely because they are easy and vulnerable is sheer cowardice.
Last question first, no, I wouldn't, because it is a military target according to the Geneva convention. Thus, it's a foreign act of war against a military target. The person is a war-criminal, not a terrorist, and a war criminal because that person is an unlawful combatant. To the first, I don't follow your logic. Let's put this back in the literary world to better get to the point I was making. In talking about conflict, there are different kinds of conflict: Man vs. Nature Man vs. Man Man vs. Self Man vs. Etc. In each of these, bravery will be defined a little different. For the person getting a shot who has a phobia, that is man vs. self. The bravery involved in that conflict is different than the bravery involved in Man vs. Nature, for instance. In that case, if a woman saves two young men from a fire, she shows bravery in dealing with both man vs. self, and also man vs. nature. In both types of conflict, if the issue the person is facing is not at least equal to, if not greater than the person's everyday being, then it's not bravery. It's just a tough job. For instance, I hate heights. I despise them. I've had to go up on ladders numerous times to fix lights and other things. Am I brave for doing that? No. Now, if someone dives in front of a car and pushes a child out of the way, is that brave? Yes, because that person is facing a conflict much greater than him or herself. I don't know of many people who weight 2000 pounds and moves at 40 miles an hour. Facing that collision and making the choice to save the child is very brave, because they are facing a conflict greater than themselves. In the conflict of man vs. man, it is not brave for a twelve year old to face down a five year old and smack him to the ground. It is not brave for an armed man to draw and shoot an unarmed man when there's no threat from the unarmed man, and it is not brave for a person to attack a crowd of unarmed and unsuspecting people. That is why again, there is no bravery in terrorism. Goin back to the question you first asked, and tying it in with this question, think of the Japanese Kamikaze aerial attacks in World War II. It was not an act of terrorism because it was an attack on a military target, and no matter what else a person might say about them, they showed tremendous bravery in that they were flying directly against their equals if not betters (plane versus naval guns and protecting fighters), and still drove their planes into the ships. That's the difference I see. I hope that helps to explain what I'm talking about. However, if it doesn't and you want to continue this conversation, let's do it in a different thread so that we don't hijack this one. (Oh, and I fully get what you're saying about not underestimating your opponents and know that you're debating from that perspective. I would agree with the body of what you're saying, I just wouldn't label it bravery).
I don't really see the need to continue the conversation much longer. You state that I believe that courage and bravery have nothing to do with an objective assessment of whether a reasonable person would have fear of engaging in a particular act. I feel that it doesn't matter what may or may not reasonably be considered sufficiently or validly fear-inducing. No matter how unreasonable, if a person nevertheless engages in an intentional act, despite being afraid to do so, he or she is brave. You don't agree, and that's fine. As far as the Pentagon attack, I still think it's an act of terrorism because there are a significant number of civilians who work in or might be at the Pentagon. Also, we were not engaged in a declared war, and the criminal act was not directly aimed to kill soldiers who otherwise would kill the people who perpetrated the act. Again, you disagree. As erebh pointed out, there is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism." Many academics term it as an act designed to deliver a particular political message, done specifically to induce fear and awe in the population as a whole. This is the term I accept. I think you have a valid argument in stating that if the plane were not full of civilians, and only targeted this particular institution that is connected to the military, that you would consider it an act of war rather than terror. I might agree if that were the full extent of the 9/11 events, and it were changed to fit your parameters. But it was not. We have differing specific definitions of "terrorism." I don't think it's necessarily worthy of additional discussion.
I didn't hear about the explosions until late in the afternoon and my heart leapt because I have a good friend that lives in Boston. Luckily, she and her husband were out of town. As someone who was affected by 911 (my neighborhood was nearby) I am saddened that so many innocent people were hurt. This wasn't a strike at a symbol or a government or financial institution. It's whole purpose was just to hurt people.
I don't see how you have concluded that I would agree with this. "Brave person murders civilians and an 8 year old." I presume the 8 year old was also a civilian, in that I doubt he was a military or law enforcement officer. I would not use that phrase as a headline. "Brave" is not the first adjective I would use to describe him. Does the fact that someone murders a civilian mean that he or she is brave? I don't think it's probative on that issue. Nowhere have I indicated that I think it was a laudable or worthy act -- in fact, I have directly stated the opposite. Particularly, as the mother of an eight year old boy, it's about the most despicable, horrible thing I can imagine. I suppose you could argue that murdering civilians is always brave. I wouldn't agree. I don't think that argument would make any sense. The act itself isn't necessarily determinative of whether something is brave - it's the actor's fear or lack thereof that would determine bravery. Bravery is not always a good thing. As you indicate you are using sarcasm with respect to the school shootings, I am assuming that you don't think I find them in any way to be a positive act. All I will say on the subject of mass shootings is that I find it horrifying and dismaying that we allow these to continue to occur. So, you would consider it brave if the person murdered policymakers and law enforcement officials? The accessibility and vulnerability of targets is not the deciding factor of whether one is brave. I don't think being brave is necessarily always objectively good. There may be other reasons for the person to fear the act. It might make it seem that it is less likely that the person doing the act would have fear, or could be considered brave. If you read my earlier posts in this thread, you will see that I indicated terrorists are vile, reprehensible, horrible individuals. I would say this about most murderers. Bravery, while usually considered a desirable and positive trait, is not always necessarily so. It could enable one to commit a heinous act.
Runners lost limbs. I've seen pictures and I don't know how terrible it must feel to have all their training get ripped away from them because of some terrorists. I really hope they find the culprits.
I don't think it's very brave to put a bomb on a street and detonate it after one has left. But I can see where Liz is coming from because I thought it was ridiculous that George Bush called the 911 terrorists cowards. Being a horrible creep and being a coward are not necessarily synonymous. But it does 'feel' wrong to discuss bravery when one is discussing these kinds of horrible creeps. I see no reason to bring it up.
Apparently I have to retract this as unconfirmed, perhaps the cell towers were just maxed on their bandwidth.
I spent most of the evening watching the news. I had to turn it off after a while. I am caught between rage and wanting to cry. I feel so horrible for the people who were harmed. Hurting people in general angers me. Hurting children enrages me beyond reason. Times like this make me wish it was legal to let the families have a go at whoever is responsible. My heart goes out to everyone there.
According to BBC, "the Associated Press news agency reported that an eight-year-old boy was among the dead." That just makes me sick.
And like you, I accept the pentagon attack for the terrorism act it was in reality. I was just make the observeration to illustrate a point. To the bolded above, any discussion that furthers the way I think about something, or opens my eyes to a new concept in a discussion, is worthwhile in my opinion. ----> But I think you're right in that this isn't the time for such things. Nows the time to hug family, friends, and pray for those who are caught up in this mess (or the equivalent of that in whatever belief/non-belief a person has).
I've seen some of the most upsetting pictures i could possibly every lay eyes on. I may not be crying or showing any type of severe sadness but deep inside i'm an angry fuse and a pierced heart at the same time. I want who's responsible for this to pay the price. If i was the President i would of went after them myself if i had an idea where he/she could be at. President Obama's speech was not calming in anyway, it was half-hearted and he failed to notice that it was more than just a "tragedy". His speech was rather quick and awkwardly stiff. He wouldn't even maintain eye contact with the people he was speaking to. I don't care how stressed he is you look the people in the eyes and do what you promise and not hide from them. Despicable.
sorry for this event, it is an unmanly action hurting people whether in America, Ireland , Russia , Iraq , Pakistan, Myanmar or other lands. Tow days ago terrorism killed and injured a group of Iraq citizens by setting bombs in the cars. This occurred in the three cities of Iraq. 50 killed and 250 injured
I couldn't help looking at some graphic closeups, now I'm sorry I did. It was wishful thinking on my part. I wanted to hear something good. You're annoyed at Obama? I fail to see whatever you see. You're griping at a speech and your perceived lack of eye contact through a TV camera? Sounds to me like a contrived thing to feel slighted about. The man has two kids and it's pretty clear he's as upset as the rest of us seeing people hurt like this. It's worthwhile to remember this. On another forum I post on they are upset at how many people elsewhere are posting a link to an older incident where a US bomb allegedly killed a whole wedding party. But those people today had nothing to do with it just as I'm sure most or all of the people killed in Iraq were innocent victims of horrible people. I'm glad you spoke up without trying to pass blame around.
The terrible thing is terrorism is becoming something we are getting used to. Such stuff out of control is terrible.
In answer to chicacoliz's post, Brave men stand up to be counted - cowards hide in the shadows. They are first rate cowards. My thoughts go out to the victims.
This is indeed horrible and not should not have to happen to innocent people. But although my thoughts and sympathies goes out to the victims, I cannot seem to find myself agreeing with the total outrage that seem to sweep through western civilization every time something like this happens, knowing that thousands and thousands of innocent civilians are dead or maimed as a result of american warmongery.
I feel for those that died, and those that will forever bare the scars of todays events. I also feel sorry for society when days like this turn it into overkill via media and thus those watching it non-stop who have to turn it into some form of debate (Not say here, but everywhere it seems). May the families of those impacted, have a speedy recovery, or as fast as seen fit. Today I morn, tomorrow I wait for more information so I too can actually understand what happened, from which afterwards I may from an opinion. (Note - my enter button appears to be broken thus can't break the this up).
You really shouldn't try to conflate these, Tim. Most of us are not involved in those decisions, some of us protest to no avail. And the rest are manipulated by the media (See Bill Moyers "Selling the War" and Rachel Maddow's "Hubris") playing on some of the people's nationalism and ignorance about other cultures. Follow the money, the real culprits are not the people reacting to these injured and killed people. And that money I refer to is international, not all of the impetus for these conflicts is on one side or the other. But in response to both these posts, we do have a disproportionate response to some deaths over others. But it has nothing to do with some collective guilt we are supposed to own. The number of people killed by accidents, both in vehicles and other kinds; and by gunshot, homicide and suicide are too easily ignored. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset over these senseless deaths. And it doesn't mean I don't care about America's involvement in conflicts. They suck for the most part. So did treatment of women under the Taliban. But I don't blame Americans, I blame the corporate profiteers. They profit from war and create the conditions that result in poverty that drives some of the local conflicts in some countries. People don't need to be chastised, they need more media literacy so they can see through the messages they are bombarded with. If people weren't so easily manipulated we would have a real government by the people.
