On Cowardice

[kiwidoc]

Yorick - you may be unaware of the fact that I ma a psychiatrist who has spent 20 years assessing people who have attempted suicide, working with children and spouses of those who have suicided, reading and taking part in research into suicide and deliberate self harm, and working with those who suffer emotional and physical pain. This is what I meant b my knowledge of suicide and those who attempt it. In all this time I have been repeatedly struck by the thought "there but for the grace of god go I"

Suicide is never simple. Some people can survive unbelievable pain yes ... but we are all different and have different support systems around us. We all have different reasons to stay alive or not. People who kill themselves are not cowards - just very ill and/or very desperate.

Odds are that at least 10 people who have read your post on this board have made a serious attempt to end their life. You may disagree with what they have done but please don't judge them.

------------------


MYTH DRANNOR http://vampirelord.proboards.com/ind...er=vampirelord

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Ziroc: It's funny.. you really seem to admire these people?! Please say you DON'T.

What in the world makes you say such a thing, Ziroc? My insistence on using accurate terminology like appropriate use of the word "coward?" Is there some other reason you would accuse me of admiring them?

For the record, I think somebody can be a completely awful and evil human being without being a coward.

I think it very ironic that I am accused of admiring terrorism. My perspective on it is that I am carrying the war against terrorism a step further than many of my countrymen. I am opposed to both the form of terrorism which it is popular in this country to hate, and also forms of terrorism used by the United States itself. Terrorism is bad, period, whether it is inflicted by supporters of bin laden or rained down in the form of US bombs on civilians as in the Gulf War.

Imply that I admire terrorists. Ha! I despise terrorism, INCLUDING THE US VERSION. Clear it up any?

[250]

Originally posted by kiwidoc: You may disagree with what they have done but please don't judge them.

the best thing I've heard today!

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: What in the world makes you say such a thing, Ziroc? My insistence on using accurate terminology like appropriate use of the word "coward?" Is there some other reason you would accuse me of admiring them? For the record, I think somebody can be a completely awful and evil human being without being a coward. I think it very ironic that I am accused of admiring terrorism. My perspective on it is that I am carrying the war against terrorism a step further than many of my countrymen. I am opposed to both the form of terrorism which it is popular in this country to hate, and also forms of terrorism used by the United States itself. Terrorism is bad, period, whether it is inflicted by supporters of bin laden or rained down in the form of US bombs on civilians as in the Gulf War. Imply that I admire terrorists. Ha! I despise terrorism, INCLUDING THE US VERSION. Clear it up any?

*resists the urge to stand up and clap out loud*

I like the last four sentences in particular.

[250]

Originally posted by G'kar: *resists the urge to stand up and clap out loud* I like the last four sentences in particular.

**pull out his gun**
**aim**

mind explain what you meant by that?

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Ziroc: Found something on a usenet forum: "I think the more cowardly are those who masterminded the attack: they used the suicide terrorists as their instruments and have disappeared into the shadows without even having the courage to stand up and claim responsibility for their acts. I think this is what is meant when the terrorists were described as being cowardly. The people who were actually on the planes were more deluded than they were cowards." And "Perhaps the idea is that it is cowardly to make a sneak attack, especially on a defenseless civilian target, rather than confront an armed enemy face to face."

I think it is clear that there is a psychological gratification in labeling the enemy "cowards". There doesn't seem to be any real objective reason for doing it otherwise, at least no reason that could not apply equally to US forces, which of course we think of as brave an patriotic (more psychological stuff).

As for making attacks on civilian targets, at a distance instead of face to face, if that were the definition of cowardice than a whole legion of cowards has fought for the US government in the past.

Our whole modern strategy in fighting wars has been to minimize our own casualties by fighting at a distance instead of face to face as much as possible, with planes and missles.

As for the definition of cowardice being taking action and then hiding in the shadows instead of claiming responsibility, in that case another legion of cowards has worked for the US government in the past, in every covert operation (and there have been very many) we have ever conducted.



[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 10-08-2001).]

[250]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: I think it is clear that there is a psychological gratification in labeling the enemy "cowards". There doesn't seem to be any real objective reason for doing it otherwise, at least no reason that could not apply equally to US forces, which of course we think of as brave an patriotic (more psychological stuff). As for making attacks on civilian targets, at a distance instead of face to face, if that were the definition of cowardice than a whole legion of cowards has fought for the US government in the past. Our whole modern strategy in fighting wars has been to minimize our own casualties by fighting at a distance instead of face to face as much as possible, with planes and missles. As for the definition of cowardice being taking action and then hiding in the shadows instead of claiming responsibility, in that case another legion of cowards has worked for the US government in the past, in every covert operation (and there have been very many) we have ever conducted. Anyway, it is clear that many of you are receiving emotional gratification from use of the word cowardice, and not letting accuracy or realization of hypocrisy or double standards get in the way, so go right ahead.

US may (or may not) have done some cowardly act (by your definition) in the past. but what does it have to do with THIS matter? we all had done some nasty things, does that make us bad, right now?

is there anything wrong with fighting from a distance? I thought reduce casualty is a good thing? maybe I was wrong all thiese time...

what makes bin Laden a coward is, he sneaks upon defenseless civillians. and his prime concern is to kill innocent people. to terrorize, which is an easy thing. everyone can terroize someone else by commiting violence acts. it hardly requires any courage

what makes you think US is being coward here?

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by 250: US may (or may not) have done some cowardly act (by your definition) in the past. but what does it have to do with THIS matter? we all had done some nasty things, does that make us bad, right now? is there anything wrong with fighting from a distance? I thought reduce casualty is a good thing? maybe I was wrong all thiese time... what makes bin Laden a coward is, he sneaks upon defenseless civillians. and his prime concern is to kill innocent people. to terrorize, which is an easy thing. everyone can terroize someone else by commiting violence acts. it hardly requires any courage what makes you think US is being coward here?

250, you are misunderstanding me.

I am not saying the US is cowardly. What I said above was that by the definitions Ziroc suggested for why the terrorists were cowardly, then the US would have been too, many times in the past. Ziroc suggested those definitions, not me. I was pointing out the double standard involved in applying them only to the terrorists.

[John D Harris]

Let's see if I got this right...
When you sneak attack unarmed and unsuspecting people, "shoot them in the back" if you will that's not cowardice.
When you tell some that you are going to attack if certain conditions are not met "going to kick the left side of your head with my right foot and there is not a damn thing you can do about it" if you will that is cowardice.
HHMMMMM?

------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: I'll call them cowards, because rather than go after the people that did them "harm" (whatever the hell that is!). They went after 6000 innocent people that never saw it coming. That's the cowards way, to strike when the victims not looking. Then ran away. Their version of running away was choicing death. You will never hear me call that a couragous act. It was despicable and those men's names should never be allowed to be utter again!!!

I am not saying they were brave. What I am questioning is that they were cowards. There is a difference.