|
-
July 8th, 2003, 08:39 PM
#21
Now you have told us who you think are cowards...but why are they cowards, pretend I am real stupid and define the term for me not using the word coward in the definition. The any one who fights the Americans in Iraq is a coward statement tells me that you think any one who disagrees with you is a coward...that’s a very odd definition of the word.
You don't have to be stupid to understand that those who fight for Saddam Hussien are cowardly ok.
I will not bother to answer the rest of your questions here because your acting like a kid. Again you have put words in my mouth and your coming across very juvenile.
We have had a great many debates bballad, but you seldom act like this. I have enjoyed them for the most part, because you don't give up. However, you typically never accuse me of saying things that i have not even come close to saying. I don't really mind though, you have your opinion, i have mine. Like i said before, i'm fine with that.
Umm what party would that be ..personally I hate the left as much as I hate the right.
Well, we finally agree on something. I hate both sides aswell, the only reason i vote for the "right" is because i agree with their stance (on Israel and abortion mainly) more than the left. The left has some good ideas, but there is too much on their side that i hate for me to vote for them.
Again i ask please stop putting words in my mouth bballad.
-
July 8th, 2003, 09:24 PM
#22
Originally posted here by FrameWork
You don't have to be stupid to understand that those who fight for Saddam Hussien are cowardly ok.
Actually, I am curious myself to hear the answer to bballad's question. You have said yourself that apparently your definition (or understanding of the meaning) of cowardly differs from what we believe. He is merely asking for you to define and/or explain your meaning/understanding of the word coward in the context of these posts. He furthermore asked you to do it without using the word you are trying to define (IMHO, not an unreasonable request) and I am assuming by saying he was stupid, he meant to keep the terms as simple as possible.
You have repeatidly stated the those that fight for Sadaam are cowards, but you have yet to say exactly why or how you wound up at that conclusion. How does fighting Americans make them cowards?
/nebulus
Save your indignation, according to the rest of the world coward means the following:
From dictionary.com:
cow·ard n. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
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.
\Cow"ard\ (kou"?rd), a. [OF. couard, coard, coart, n. and adj., F. couard, fr. OF. coe, coue, tail, F. queue (fr. L. coda, a form of cauda tail) + -ard; orig., short-tailed, as an epithet of the hare, or perh., turning tail, like a scared dog. Cf. Cue, Queue, Caudal.] 1. (Her.) Borne in the escutcheon with his tail doubled between his legs; -- said of a lion.
2. Destitute of courage; timid; cowardly.
3. Belonging to a coward; proceeding from, or expressive of, base fear or timidity.
\Cow"ard\, n. A person who lacks courage; a timid or pusillanimous person; a poltroon.
\Cow"ard\, v. t. To make timorous; to frighten. [Obs.]
adj : lacking courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted; "cowardly dogs, ye will not aid me then"- P.B.Shelley [syn: cowardly, coward(a), fearful] [ant: brave] n : a person who shows fear or timidity
The only possible way that I could even conceive of them somehow being called cowards, is you could assert that they were cowards for not standing up to a murderous/thuggish regime. It seems to me, and hell, I guess the rest of the English speaking world, that standing up and fighting anyone is the antithesis of a coward. So yes, yes, Sadaam was a thug, and yes, yes his henchmen engaged in many crimes against humanity, how does that make them cowards, you have still failed to answer the question. So, morally depraved, yes, ignorant, probably, lacking moral fortitude, certainly, coward, no. Let me know when you want to return to the real world and I will be willing to continue to debate this, otherwise, I am wasting no more time here.
/nebulus
There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect...There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.
(Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded)
-
July 8th, 2003, 10:00 PM
#23
I can hardly believe what i am hearing!
I am very offended that you guys have asked me to state the utterly obvious, but if you must:
FrameWorks definition of a coward:
Anyone who is willing to fight/rape/torture/kill for a scum bag like Saddam Hussien!
Saddam Hussein
President of Iraq since 1979 (Vice President from 1968-79). Dictator who stops at nothing to preserve personal power and regime survival. After the 1968 Ba'athist Coup, began his career as Chief of Iraq's security services.
*
Executed opponents and suspected potential rivals, including scores of high-level government officials and thousands of political prisoners.
*
Since the 1970s, escalated and made routine the systematic torture and execution of political prisoners.
*
Ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and against Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.
*
Ordered the invasion and destruction of Kuwait in 1990-91 with 1,000 Kuwaitis killed.
*
Directed the 1991 bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a insurgencies in northern and southern Iraq with at least 30,000 to 60,000 killed.
*
Ordered the destruction of southern marshes to extinguish the Shi'a insurgency.
The list of links on this topic go on and on:
http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm
I don't have anything else to this converstation. You have asked me the most asinine question i have ever been asked nebulus/bballad, and i am highly offended by it. Good-day.
-
July 9th, 2003, 04:45 AM
#24
Bballad thatnk you that is what I have been trying to say threw the entire thing you can not demonize, your enemy when your enemy is following the rules. At the same time I am willing to step out on the ledge and and say that in Iraq the are probably doing the same thing to America.
I just wish that people would just actually listening to that. Why are there some many problems. Cowardice might be a part of but at the same time it is crazy to believe that noone dies in war the normal way, by just getting shot.
Whizkid2300
-
July 15th, 2003, 09:09 PM
#25
Whizkid thats exactly what I am saying.
some interesting ntes on your points framework
the 91 upriesing was directly Bush seniors fault, he promised the revolters aid hen backed out...that may cause a lot of problems with the shiats in our current occupation.
A lot of studies have been done on the gasing of the Kurds (some of which where run by Husain), it seems that the Iraq's found they would have caused more calusalties for less money if they had used conventional weapons..this is probably when he stated todismantle his chemical/bioligcal weapons programs...long before 2002.
Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|