Just in case you haven't heard, there has been a terrorist attack in London. Three explosions occurred in the Tube and one on a double decker bus. Once again, terrorists have shown themselves to be cowards. What is the definition of a coward except one that attacks only when he can not be seen or discovered? One who attacks with no fear of being discovered because he can not.
Being an Anglophile, this hits close to my heart. So far 40 people have died. Some of the Tube stations that were attacked are places that I have been, and I have ridden on a double decker bus. And yet, the solution, according to the news media, is that all of this happened because of the unpopularity of Tony Blair. If Tony would just talk a little nicer and get out of Bush's mess than these things wouldn't happen. Malarkey! Unfortunately there has always been a constituent in this world that desires to destroy Western Civilization. Ans, unfortunately, in recent history (think last 1000 years or so) this constituent have been Islamists. No, I am not saying that every Muslim is a terrorist, but most (99.99%) have been Muslims. When the Koran, the foundation of a religion, allows for terrorism against any who are not Muslims then what do we expect? Exactly what has happened in the last 1000 years. Cowardice.
I agree. I think it is worth pointing out that these people strike because they are weak, not because they are strong. We should not fear them, but we should be determined to further freedom and to spread the Gospel of Christ!
Posted by: Jtaylor | 08 July 2005 at 08:42 AM
Hey, guys. Do you think it's cowardice or merely another means of being effective?
The US and our allies are mostly states--we have standing armies (mostly), superior technology, and more systematic organization.
Al Queda Inc. isn't nation-based but ideology based (mostly). Their political aims and view of war is apocalyptic--so their means are different from ours. However, they do blow themselves up, which is fairly brave.
Also, because their end is setting up an Islamic world, they see all targets as viable.
We in the West tend to see war as an issue of self-interest/self-defense. Our goals are generally to defeat an enemy and get on with our lives and let them get on with theirs (and hopefully trade). So we attack armies/military targets to stop their means of aggression.
Most modern Wester warfare differs dramatically with the radical Islamics in terms of goals and means. Can we compare the two? Or would it be better to say they're plain evil and adjust accordingly? IDK.
Thoughts? (and this isn't to be really political. I really don't know.)
Posted by: amy | 12 July 2005 at 07:58 PM