Are terrorists cowards?
I’m really mad this morning, so forgive me if this comment is neither complete nor coherent. I consider myself a student of history, and specifically the history of the ancient Celts, Bretons and Saxons. I believe most of these ancient peoples would have considered the bombings we have seen for years in Northern Ireland and Isreal and more recently, the attacks on the Iraqi police station yesterday to have been cowardly acts. Why? Because the attackers do not announce themselves first and give their family names and recite their personal histories before the attack! I imagine you could blame the US for this too (and not just because blaming the US is currently fashionable) since the Americans during the American Revolution set the standard for Guerrila warfare in their "cowardly" attacks on the British troops from behind trees, etc. (previously thought to be an unspeakably cowardly method of attack by the rules of engagement on the European continent).
Perhaps if we launched a propoganda campaign in Iraq on TV and radio? We could espouse the "honorable" method of warfare where the attacker would have to announce himself first, tell the tale of his battles and achievements, recite his personal family history and the reason for the attack. We could hammer into the listeners the concept of personal honor and the disgrace that is suicide bombing. We could release movies (on DVD since going to the movie theater is too scary over there) that reinforce the concept of honor and the cowardice of sneak attacks. I remember reading about WWII that the propoganda war was a large component of the battle. Where is our propoganda machine in Iraq? Convince the young fighters that what they are dying for is not honorable.
These kinds of attacks are just so frustrating because they are so obviously cowardly from my "Romano-British" point of view. I imagine if I was an American living in 1777 and fighting the British I’d feel differently.
Comment posted on 10-28-2003
Excellent points.
The truth is of course seems to me to be that, just like in Palestine, when you don\’t have any other option you do what you can. Are the Iraqi insurgents suppose to gather an army and take us on? Even the Geneva convention does not apply when you are under occupation. Anything goes. How would we react if we were under occupation?
That said, I think what is actually hapening in Iraq regarding guerilla attacks is not in the interest of the vast majority of the residents living there. I\’ll hazard a guess that Bush is correct in that the rebels (notice my non-use of \’terrorist\’) are mainly Islamic fundamentalists who are fighting because they see two things happening in Iraq.
First: They see an attempt to import western democracy and values in the middle east by way of force. It stinks of Christian imperialism and if it spreads throughout the middle east it threatens to erase their values and way of life. They believe this is our plan.
Turns out it is out plan. http://www.newamericancentury.org (you\’ll have to dig a bit on Iraq, read the statement of purpose and notice the undersigned)
Second: They see Iraq, a long time secular state and, while de-stabilized, it provides an opportunity to spread Islamic fundamentalism. Their hope is that if things are bad enough, we will eventually leave or soften, people will cling to the cause and hatred and blame… and the Iatolas preaching goodness and tradition will take power. Look at Iran or Afghanistan.
Fundamentalism always needs a clear enemy to fuel off of. I see it here in Colorado Springs but the rallying point is mostly hatred of homosexuals.
Cowards? The term doesn\’t fit in a lopsided battle.
-N.P.
Coward
[Middle English, from Old French couard, from coue, tail, from Latin cauda.]coward adj.
Word History: A coward is one who “turns tail.” The word comes from Old French couart, coart, “coward,” and is related to Italian codardo, “coward.” Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, “tail” (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, “cowardly lion,” was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.
Comment posted on 10-29-2003
Thanks for the certainly more reasoned response to my question from
the gut. My question opened up a lot of avenues for discussion, but
the one thing I was trying to address was the question of personal
honor of pre-Christian Celts as compared to the modern day \"rebels\"
of Iraq, Ireland and Isreal. You give the etimology of the word Coward
taken from Old English (orig. Norman French), but your history of the
word stops there in Norman England (after 1066 AD). The ancient Celts
and Bretons that I named predate those folks and spoke a very
different language (one that has almost been exterminated today by
the English we are speaking!), so it would be interesting to me to trace
the etimology of a similar word in Gaelic (either P or Q form) forwards.
Or to examine the concept of personal honor in more depth. The
chivalrous stories of the middle ages were based largely on the
concept of personal honor of the ancient Celts of England and Ireland.
The King Arthur we all know was likely an ancient Celtic GOD (not a
King) that eventually was transformed into a physical person by
Norman-English Christian story tellers who retold the ancient myths.
We would find it very difficult to relate to these folks from our neo-
Christian, modern American veiwpoint. THEY would consider these
folks cowards for the reasons I stated, but they would most likely also
consider our troops cowardly for similar reasons. Perhaps my buddy
Mike will weigh in on this and help us out with ancient Celtic law (he\’s
the expert)!
Comment posted on 10-31-2003
Ahhh the American Propaganda machine, what\’s it doing in Iraq you ask? I know a little about it, I have a friend who works for Voice of America or more commonly VOA. He does broadcasting work for eastern europe, but all the divisions sort of work together. The former head of Clear Channel Broadcasting brought his expertise to the VOA and got them to change the format of the broadcasts in Iraq from an all news broadcast to 24-7 American pop music with top-of-the-hour news breaks.
Have a coke and a smile abdul and enjoy your mcfreedom!
Comment posted on 10-31-2003
I don\’t know very much about Celtic culture, but I speculate that honor in battle went away due to in invention of the firearm. Imagine if you had to face your enemy with cold hard steel, fearlessly. Yeah, those were men!
Now we\’ve taken it several steps farther, lobbing missles at targets from very far away. It\’s so clean and easy from our side it\’s disgusting. Then again, it might be cowardly and smart at the same time.
I wonder if in Celtic times if someone had clearly superior armor or weapons, as to give them a clear advantage, if that in itself would constitute cowardice? Would
I have tried to find a similar word in the Brythonic or Goidelic languages but I havn\’t been able to. Was the concept based on fear of dying in battle?
Comment posted on 11-2-2003
mcfreedom! I love it. A guy at work from the Ukraine was talking to me about how things aren\’t very different here from the old Soviet Union. The old party bosses had all the money there, but here the place is run by big corporations. The main differences he saw was that our mass transit system sucks and the subways are really dirty. I explained that making the rail systems better would put alot of people out of work who make cars and gas and gas stations and mechanics etc. and since they run the country its unlikely to happen. Maybe Abdul would be happier with a new Ford Excursion?
Comment posted on 11-2-2003
McFreedom sums it up well.
When an ancient culture is threatened with extermination by the import of boy bands, sexy 15 year old girls and TV\’s \"fear factor\" is this reaction anything other than predictable? If evething here is so great, why do we lead the world\’s major nations by a long shot in violent gun deaths?
That being said, I think that modernization of the Middle East, for beter or worse, is inevitable. The world is changing. Change on this scale almost always results in a blood bath. I\’m hoping for regime change at home next year.
Comment posted on 11-3-2003
Agreed. I am one of the %68 (I think that was the NY times poll number) who thinks this country is headed in a seriously wrong direction. I remember after the 2000 election I posted something on my site along the lines of ‘o.k. Bush, you took the election, you’re President now….wow me!’ Well, I’ve been wow’d. I’ve gone strait past wow, to ‘HOLY CRAP!!’ in fact. I don’t htink I’d need to elaborate my position(s) here on Nate’s blog, but there was a peice on PBS frontline two weeks ago that was atonishing. It’s on the web here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/
I think everyone I know needs to see this.
-T