the fact that so many became angered at you for your interpretation...
Yogi, I followed the discussion on whether or not "coward" is a label that applies to Osama. I did not participate, but I read it all. My sense was that the sides were pretty evenly divided and that there were some good points made on each side. I thought it was an interesting and multi-faceted discussion although a bit rough, at times. The discussion covered both personal characteristics and the legitimacy of various forms of warfare in terms of international law and accepted practices. It seemed to me that the best points for the applicability of "coward" were based on his chosen style of warfare rather than his personal characteristics.
Obviously, one who participates in the murder of unarmed civilians is not courageous in any way
I would use the words, shameful, cruel, immoral, fanatical, cold-hearted, murderous, outrageous, evil, ghastly, and uncivilized, to describe the attack. I could probably come up with some other disgusting aspects of that act if I thought about it some more. But I don't think the word, cowardly, particularly applies. The application of that label is a complicated question involving both Osama's individual spirit and the military legitimacy of his targets. I don't see any lack of spirit in the man, himself. In prosecuting his uphill battle, he's shown himself to committed and tenacious, which meets the standard for courage. While don't think that office buildings can remotely be consider legitimate military targets, I don't see anything in the definitions of courage and cowardice that speaks to style of warfare. Modern warfare does not require combatants to stand in a line with a bunch of redcoats and be shot at to demonstrate courage.
Arguing that cowardice is not among Osama's considerable shortcomings is at least a legitimate POV, if not the most valid POV. It should not subject one to ridicule or charges of sympathy to the enemy.
Americans hate Osama, with good reason. Hatred sometimes make us overgeneralize--an evil person must have universally negative characteristics. Therefore Osama must be ugly, cold, dishonest, dirty, violent, disloyal, stupid, unmanly, and cowardly. And short,fat, and can't dance, too boot. Well, we know that some but not all of those negatives apply. To argue that he is neither cowardly or short, for example, is not un-American.
Karen |
