When you say he is willing to give his life for what he believes in you are way off base. He is NOT willing to give his life for what he believes in. If hijacking a plane and committing suicide is supposed get you into heaven, and guarantees you 70 hot virgins when you get there, why didn't he do it himself? Why didn't he bomb the wtc in 93 himself? Why didn't he bomb the US embassy himself?
View Quote
Are you trying to make the argument that anyone who directs violence instead of committing it in person is a coward? If so, then wouldn't Robert E. Lee qualify as a "coward" because he didn't charge the Union lines at Gettysburg? Wouldn't Ronald Reagan qualify as a "coward" because he didn't pilot one of the planes that bombed Libya?
My point is not to defend bin Laden -- it's just to point out the flaw in the argument.
This scumbag sent men to slash the throats of unarmed stewardesses, some of whom were first bound then butchered. He had small children killed on those planes. I wonder how Bin Laden would like watching me slash his children's throats? He isa classic coward, just like Hitler.
View Quote
Again, this boils down to an assumption that "evil=cowardice", which IMHO is fallacious. (BTW, Hitler was decorated for bravery in WWI.) If you sincerely believe that [b]all[/b] evil people are cowards, then (as a matter of logic) you have to believe that anyone who shows bravery is [b]not[/b] evil.
This sort of reasoning is exactly why so many Muslims admire bin Laden in spite of the evil of his attacks: they see him going to war against the world's most powerful nation, which (if you don't consider him stupid and/or crazy) seems brave. Similarly, American attacks via cruise missile or bomber can be seen as cowardly and thus evidence of America's evil.
[b]I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone[/b]. My point here is to help everyone "Know thy enemy" because that's the first step in defeating him. Even though fanatics might be too nutty to qualify as "brave", that doesn't make them "cowardly", either.