Cowardly terrorist attack. As opposed to....?

leah233

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 11:18 am

The reason it is called cowardly is because it is against unarmed civilians. When terrorists attack soldiers it isn't referred to as being cowardly. (or terrorism either for that matter. Terrorists attack civilians. Freedom Fighter only attack military or police)

crust

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 11:24 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Courageous? Honorable? I know that term is used to annoy the terrorists because cowardly is the last thing anyone wants to be, right? But it's such an inappropriate and illogical word to use, IMO.

This.
As if they ever attack armed civillians... planned... yknow?

Fox

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 1:27 pm

English is a fantastic language when dealing with the concrete. It's great for communicating specific information with enormous precision. This is why it's the predominate language of technology and why air traffic control is conducted in English almost everywhere.

With abstract ideas? Not so much. I love watching all the YouTube videos where people who speak Japanese as a second language list all the words in Japanese that we really, really need in English. A single word in Japanese conveys a complex, nuanced concept that would take a 1500-word essay in English.

Since there is no single word in English that adequately describes the motivations or characteristics of an individual who subscribes to the spiritual principle that sin can be expiated by violence against non-believers or even not-enough-believers, "cowardly" it is!

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 1:42 pm

Fox wrote:

There are many better words.

Not cowardly. Because as abhorrent as such attacks are, they are rarely cowardly. The attacker usually knows that s/he will not get away, and will either be killed or jailed.

Fox

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 2:01 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Not cowardly. Because as abhorrent as such attacks are, they are rarely cowardly. The attacker usually knows that s/he will not get away, and will either be killed or jailed.

Depends on your perspective. There are plenty of Muslims who would say, "Hey, dude, if you want to merit Heaven, do it the hard way: observe the dietary laws; don't drink alcohol; pray five times a day; visit Mecca, give charity, etc. Trying to merit Heaven through a single act of violent jihad pretty much explains why you were a loser in the first place."

Still, though, I agree with you that there are lots of better words.

crust

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 2:08 pm

weasley wrote:

Unless the terrorists are in Israel and then yeah you do hear of them (attempting) attacking armed military forces... Confused

I thought about that but that wouldnt be called cowardly either.
Basicly the words cowardly and terrorist dont go together.

Dandelion1

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 3:12 pm

Fox wrote:

This is fascinating. I know what I'm going to be googling later! I remember a line from one of Amy Tan's books in which she defined a certain word/concept as "the better part of mixed intentions. " And I remember thinking, oh, how perfect and eloquent is that!

With regards to the word cowardly in this context, I've always seen it kind of as you might use the word cowardly to describe someone who beats his wife, ie, choosing an easy target to release your aggressions.

goodmorning

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 3:40 pm

Fox wrote:

A lot of this is more due to happenstance than to any particular feature of the English language or its capacity for expression. ICAO first recommended using English as a standard aviation language in the early 1950s, shortly after the end of WWII. At the time, the majority of airplanes were manufactured in the US/UK, and the majority of pilots and air traffic controllers came from those English-speaking countries as well.

Similarly, a vast majority of programming languages use English keywords, but then, over a third of all programming languages were created in English-speaking countries, and much of the early research in theoretical computer science and programming was done in those countries. (The fact that English can be written with ASCII characters only did not hurt!)

A version of Italian was the eponymous lingua franca of trade in the Mediterranean area during the Renaissance era; French was the language of diplomacy; Latin, followed by German, used to be the language favored by scientists. Very little of the reasons behind these language trends have to do with the specific features of the languages under discussion.

Fox

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 4:03 pm

aleph wrote:

This is fascinating. I know what I'm going to be googling later!

I love Rachel and Jun (they're a married couple living in Japan). Warning for some bleeped language that appears on the subtitles.

My favorites are "natsukashi" and "shougani"! I think we really need "shougani" in the frum veldt!

leah233

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 4:32 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Not cowardly. Because as abhorrent as such attacks are, they are rarely cowardly. The attacker usually knows that s/he will not get away, and will either be killed or jailed.

It is considered cowardly to initially attack victims who can't fight back. Even if the person will be caught or killed later. A real fighter is supposed to only fight with enemy combatants.

Dandelion1

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 4:48 pm

Fox wrote:

Thank you!! Very Happy

PinkFridge

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 8:06 pm

Fox wrote:

I find that a very heartening thought, especially if it's true.
I wonder if there are some Muslims who look at these terrorists and think, "You go, guy/girl. If I could organize my life to do it, or if I weren't so cowardly, I'd be on p. 1 tomorrow myself."

PinkFridge

Wed, Nov 01 2017, 8:14 pm

leah233 wrote:

It is considered cowardly to initially attack victims who can't fight back. Even if the person will be caught or killed later. A real fighter is supposed to only fight with enemy combatants.

OK, I can see this. But this whole discussion is reminding me of an article I read years ago in the JO, I think it was called The Bad Guys and the Tzadikim, or something like that. IIRC it was written by David Schapps, based on the thoughts of Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l of Baltimore.

There's this whole culture of the good guy, and noble fighting. Heaven forfend you shoot someone in the back. Well guess what. If you see Hitler's back, you shoot him in the back. This is what I remember most from it.

Years ago I reread The 18th Emergency by Betsy Byars. I think when one of my kids took it out. Serendipitously, it was in the same batch of books as Gordon Korman's Radio Fifth Grade. Both books deal with bullies. The Byars book runs with noble fighting thing. Korman's does not.

Fox

Thu, Nov 02 2017, 1:25 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Well, sadly we know from various surveys in Europe and the U.S. that entirely too many Muslims agree that, while they might personally not be interested in violent jihad, they have no particular problem with someone else doing it.

Also unfortunately, any prominent Muslim who would like to call violent jihadis losers will likely find himself the target of a fatwa, which is not something most people are willing to risk.

leah233

Thu, Nov 02 2017, 8:58 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Agreed 100% but even in war there has to be rules

Too many people don't get the moral difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter . Many people say things like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you are on etc."

That is morally unacceptable. . The different between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that terrorists attacks civilians. A freedom fighter only attacks the soldiers and police of the occupying force.

Ambushing and killing Hitler from the back would be no different form ambushing any other enemy combatant. Even during holocaust I don't think it would have been right to just kill some random German child.