"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the
kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes
into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the
WTC?

I suppose it's exactly the same...as long as you consider a military
ship during war the same as a building full of people at work. The
cowardly part is not the fact that both the kamikaze and the terrorist
know they're going to die. The cowardly part is........aw forget it.

Let me try to finish that one for you: The cowardly part is not having the
guts to do it--whatever it is you really believe should be done.

Main Entry: cow·ard
Pronunciation: 'kau(-&)rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French coart, from coe tail, from Latin
cauda
: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity

Where's the show of fear? Where's the timidity?

What Nicholas--and George Bush--are trying to do is to re-define the word to
suit their inarticulateness and muddle-headed thinking. Cowardice is NOT
having the guts to fly the plane--into the ship, or into the building.

Killing innocent people is a sick perversion, except, of course, when WE'RE
killing the innocent people, for some "higher purpose."

It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. Those are entirely different
concepts from what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a
sickness that convinces someone that their ends justify the means of killing
many innocent people.

That's all there is to it, and no amount of home-cooking is going to change
the meaning of the words.

--
Ed Huntress