Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

I sincerely hope that isn't true. Gunning down kids at a camp, particularly when they have pictures of you doing just that, should just end in automatic and swift "removal" of the perpetrator.

He was brave enough to engage in activity that would make him a wanted suspect of criminal activity. I'm not sure that, no matter how distasteful his activities may have been, anything he has done makes him a coward.

Meh, specifically targeting children for the shooting spree could be argued as being cowardly.

dogma wrote:He was brave enough to engage in activity that would make him a wanted suspect of criminal activity. I'm not sure that, no matter how distasteful his activities may have been, anything he has done makes him a coward.

There are legitimate ways to attack a sovereign. Attack their armed forces and engage them in a fight for supremacy. Terrorism is cowardice because it does not subject the perpetrator to the same risks as his victims.

dogma wrote:He was brave enough to engage in activity that would make him a wanted suspect of criminal activity. I'm not sure that, no matter how distasteful his activities may have been, anything he has done makes him a coward.

You mean besides tricking children and murdering them while everyone else was distracted by a cowardly bombing attack....right?

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:He was brave enough to engage in activity that would make him a wanted suspect of criminal activity. I'm not sure that, no matter how distasteful his activities may have been, anything he has done makes him a coward.

There are legitimate ways to attack a sovereign. Attack their armed forces and engage them in a fight for supremacy. Terrorism is cowardice because it does not subject the perpetrator to the same risks as his victims.

Being a soldier ive never really agreed with that. The first thing that governments do is use the word "coward" basically as an insult.

I think that taking up arms takes some guts, regardless of the cause. They used to call the IRA teams "cowards" and they called the sniper team that killed Stephen Restorick "cowardly" despite the fact that they kept on shooting people, when they knew that SF troopers were hunting them.

Same with suicide bombers, its hardly cowardice is it?

I think terrorists are merciless scumbag mother fethers who are willing to kill innocent people, but not cowards. Cowards sit at home and do nothing at all even if they really feel like they should be doing something.

Something like this boils down to your own opinion of course, but Ive never viewed terrorists as cowards. They seem to make peace with what they are going to do, and do it.

first hand experience from a survivor, from a Linux feed none the less

http://gunkies.org/blog/?p=91

Snipers holding out while the inevitable retribution draws near and suicide bombers are a very different thing from killing unarmed children whilst dressed as an authority figure and planting a bomb and remote detonating it.

Neither of those things face much (if any) actual opposition. Especially when you know what your max sentence will be regardless of how heinous your acts.

biccat wrote:
There are legitimate ways to attack a sovereign. Attack their armed forces and engage them in a fight for supremacy. Terrorism is cowardice because it does not subject the perpetrator to the same risks as his victims.

No intelligent use of force subjects the attacker to the same risks as the defender. Why would you ever consciously engage in hostilities unless you were more likely to win (meaning achieve your objectives) than lose (fail to do so)? Barring mistakes, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Being a soldier ive never really agreed with that. The first thing that governments do is use the word "coward" basically as an insult.

I think that taking up arms takes some guts, regardless of the cause. They used to call the IRA teams "cowards" and they called the sniper team that killed Stephen Restorick "cowardly" despite the fact that they kept on shooting people, when they knew that SF troopers were hunting them.

Same with suicide bombers, its hardly cowardice is it?

I think terrorists are merciless scumbag mother fethers who are willing to kill innocent people, but not cowards. Cowards sit at home and do nothing at all even if they really feel like they should be doing something.

Something like this boils down to your own opinion of course, but Ive never viewed terrorists as cowards. They seem to make peace with what they are going to do, and do it.

Exactly.

Resulting to killing unarmed civilians in a public place is a cowards move. Just killing civilians in general I consider to be cowardice. That is all I am going to say on the subject.

We call it cowardice because we don't like the actions more than it actually fitting the definition of cowardice. I suppose the idea that someone sat down and coldly planned something of this nature out then executed it with such efficiency makes us recoil in horror, and in doing so makes the act difficult to grasp so we emotionally lash out by applying labels that give us a sense of security.

As for the water being cold, it's to the south of Norway in the middle of the summer. Sure, it's probably not tropical, but you're hardly going to die from hypothermia after an hour in it.

This is what I dont get, how could so many die simply from swimming?
Its not ice cold and it was only 600m to the next shore.
Heck I swim 2km in "cold" water with no problem. I just dont get it, everybody can swim in "our" countries over here.

It's becoming pretty clear that this guy wasn't interested in dying for his cause, but wanted to get his message out. As soon as someone who posed a threat to him appeared, he surrendered.

What a coward.

I dont agree, crazy yes, coward, far from.

Another thing that puzzles me is his level of intellect.
On one hand it takes a tremendous amount of intelligence to plan something like this and not get caught, the singlemindedness and purpose is staggering.
On the other hand, how stupid can you be not to realize that such an act will only strenghten the very people and political parties that go against his own views.
I mean didnt he realize that if he´ll go through with this all the "right wing" parties will basically loose half their voters over night?

Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

I sincerely hope that isn't true.

The nordic legal system. Its so screwed up that no wonder american friends of mine simply look at me with that dumb look every time I tell then how it is over here.
You are punished for acting on what in your country would count as self defense, you get higher punishments for tax evasion then freaking battery and woe you if the thief that just broke into your house trips and breakes a leg or falls down outside your front door hurting himself on a patch if ice, then you are going to get the legal hurt thrown your way. It´s insane and no wonder that attorneys in our country are so loathed (although it is not their fault, it´s our, the voters).

He was brave enough to engage in activity that would make him a wanted suspect of criminal activity. I'm not sure that, no matter how distasteful his activities may have been, anything he has done makes him a coward.

Exactly. Twisted aside, the man has balls the size of Arkansas.
Imagine what it takes to for years plan something you know will be inhumanly hard to do (unless you are a psychopath) and also knowing that the consequence will be either your death or 14 years imprisonment in a system that will do it´s utmost to ensure you are never released after these 14 years...and doing all this in the prime of your life never being able to live and experience everything nice that the rest of us do.
However, lets wait and see what the psychology examination will reveal first.

As for terrorsim being cowardly, true but then again the average coward terrorist does the things he does fully expecting to get away (digging IEDs in the middle of the night, attacking at home territory etc).
If you shoot a person knowing there is just a small chance you get cought or hurt then yes, if you do so fully aware that you will be locked up for who knows how long with the entire populace hating your guts...

The same argument can be said about our own specops soldiers, are they cowards for taking out civvy targets from a safe distance? The missions the public is never told because opinion would not allow it.

How about Norwegeian and French resistance fighters doring WW2, blowing up german troops by remote safetly hidden somewhere fully aware that a bunch of innocent civilians kids/women/men will be killed by the german retaliation? Is that also cowardice? How accepted would you be if you went about telling people that ww2 norwegean resistance groups were a bunch of sissy cowards, instead of often killing from a distance and letting others pay the price they should have charged headlong into waiting SS fortifications, how is that for a fair fight?

The Norwegean killer may be crazy, may be insane may be fully normal, that we will soon know after the medicals but weather he was a coward or not isnt that simple. Probably both.

Now be aware that I´m playing the devils advocate here so dont get personal with me over this. It´s all about verbally presenting different views of things just because I can and almost nobody else did. If someone dares to accuse me of something then think it through very carefully.

Crom wrote:Resulting to killing unarmed civilians in a public place is a cowards move. Just killing civilians in general I consider to be cowardice. That is all I am going to say on the subject.

Hey man, no need to get pissed, as I said, I think its down to your own personal opinion obviously, and im not defending terrorism! I hate the bastards, im just saying, its a personal thing.

I understand war and violence, its a nerve wracking thing, and it take a long time to get used to it. The first few times you shoot or be shot at, your adrenilins pumping, your heart rates up, its frightening, and im just saying I think its going to take some balls to do something like this, regardless of the target. I agree with Dogma.

Think about it, who was the guy who said he should engage military forces instead?! That doesnt make sense, because you would get smoked right away!

Are snipers cowards? They wear DPM, hide a kilometre away and shoot someone, why not just march into the SAS HQ and shoot as many as possible?

Were the Viet Cong cowards for hiding in a tunnel when they got shelled? Or for putting out bobby traps? Why not just try and shoot the biggest toughest better armoured better equipped American boys you can find?

Were the American colonialists cowards for hiding when their were too many red coats to fight? Why didn't they just line up in a really big line and walk very slowly at the cannons like the Brits used to do?

AQ arent cowards, and the Taliban arent cowards, because we have more men, better gear and bigger bombs, and they still turn up for a fight, and they are terrorists one and all.

I think people are mistaking "being an idiot" with being a coward. And as I said, YMMV and your entitled to your opinion, im not defending any of these scumbags, Im just saying I doubt youl find many soldiers who've seen actually combat who agree with the free and easy use of the word coward.

Snipers holding out while the inevitable retribution draws near and suicide bombers are a very different thing from killing unarmed children

How about the majority of snipers fully aware they will get away then? Are they cowards?
Even more interesting, how about those with the actual backing of their governments to do "cowardly" things?

I think people are mistaking "being an idiot" with being a coward.

Spot on man.

Taking this argument I can claim that the entire united states of america is based solemnly on a bunch of pussy cowards. I mean killing, no mass murdering indians included children and often unarmed with rifle equipped professional soldiers? That´s surely cowardice if anything.

Taking on soldiers rather then civilians in order not to be called a coward (and getting killed in the process), sure but then again so is facing bows and arrows with repeater rifles.


Again, just saying it´s not as simple and often coloured by personal opinions on the matter.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There are legitimate ways to attack a sovereign. Attack their armed forces and engage them in a fight for supremacy. Terrorism is cowardice because it does not subject the perpetrator to the same risks as his victims.

No intelligent use of force subjects the attacker to the same risks as the defender. Why would you ever consciously engage in hostilities unless you were more likely to win (meaning achieve your objectives) than lose (fail to do so)? Barring mistakes, of course.

You should tell that to the American colonists during the US War of Independence. Or the Israeli troops in 1948, either against the British or the surrounding Islamic nations. Or the British at the Battle of Rorke's Drift. Or a lot of people who fought in a battle where they were not more likely to win than lose.

mattyrm wrote:Being a soldier ive never really agreed with that. The first thing that governments do is use the word "coward" basically as an insult.

IMO attacking military targets is legitimate, attacking civilians is cowardice. Even if you're attacking covertly (snipers, IEDs in Iraq, etc.) it's legitimate because you are exposed to the same risk. Against civilians there's no (or very little) immediate threat of repercussions for your actions.

a few points...

1 - not pissed off in the least

2 - killing anyone with out just cause is cowardice

These are my opinions. I am not even saying that killing is wrong, given certain circumstances, like self defense for example. However, mass killing people who are defenseless for no reason other than your own selfish agenda, is 100% cowardice.

sebster wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:If someone killed that many people here, they would probably be executed. I wouldn't normally endorse the death penalty, but if they killed over 90 people, I don't think I'd say anything against it.

Sure, and if the law calls for execution for heinous crimes, and a court of law finds there is enough evidence to convict, then off with his head.

But that's very different to saying policemen should summarily execute somebody.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that if he is arrested and convicted of mass murder, then 12-21 years is too good for him.

biccat wrote:
You should tell that to the American colonists during the US War of Independence. Or the Israeli troops in 1948, either against the British or the surrounding Islamic nations. Or the British at the Battle of Rorke's Drift. Or a lot of people who fought in a battle where they were not more likely to win than lose.

You should pay closer attention to what is being said.

I explicitly stated that "winning" is contingent upon achieving a set of objectives. One can engage in a foolish bout of hostility in the express interest of an objective that does not involve winning the exchange in a conventional sense. Israel in 1948, and the American Revolution, are both excellent examples of this.

"Fight for freedom/homeland/duty/honor" is an objective.

Then, as I said above, one must also account for mistakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:We call it cowardice because we don't like the actions more than it actually fitting the definition of cowardice. I suppose the idea that someone sat down and coldly planned something of this nature out then executed it with such efficiency makes us recoil in horror, and in doing so makes the act difficult to grasp so we emotionally lash out by applying labels that give us a sense of security.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
IMO attacking military targets is legitimate, attacking civilians is cowardice.

Cowardice, but not illegitimate, apparently.

Cowardice is when you are afraid of something that society holds you should not be afraid of, and your fear governs your actions.

Although it has reference to external influences, it is an internal psychological process.

Monster Rain wrote:Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

I sincerely hope that isn't true. Gunning down kids at a camp, particularly when they have pictures of you doing just that, should just end in automatic and swift "removal" of the perpetrator.

I wish people would get a grip. When he gets to 21 years he won't be let out, it has to be shown that he won't be a risk to the public. Any chance of that happening? No. He'll likely die in prison.

In the UK you're not allowed to hand down an indefinite sentence, it's against their human rights or something according to European law. But here's the rub, you can say they'll be considered for release in X years if they are deemed not to be a threat to the public which is a sly way of saying the same thing. The newspapers go mad and say "Mass murderer only gets 10 year sentence" but this isn't true. What it means is that they have to wait a minimum of 10 years before they have their case considered, and unless they can prove some massive personality change it's always turned down again and again and they die in prison. There's no way the likes of Rosemary West or Peter Sutcliffe will be released even though they are currently eligible for parole.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:IMO attacking military targets is legitimate, attacking civilians is cowardice.

Cowardice, but not illegitimate, apparently.

"Illegitimate" was implied.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

I sincerely hope that isn't true. Gunning down kids at a camp, particularly when they have pictures of you doing just that, should just end in automatic and swift "removal" of the perpetrator.

I wish people would get a grip. When he gets to 21 years he won't be let out, it has to be shown that he won't be a risk to the public. Any chance of that happening? No. He'll likely die in prison.

In the UK you're not allowed to hand down an indefinite sentence, it's against their human rights or something according to European law. But here's the rub, you can say they'll be considered for release in X years if they are deemed not to be a threat to the public which is a sly way of saying the same thing. The newspapers go mad and say "Mass murderer only gets 10 year sentence" but this isn't true. What it means is that they have to wait a minimum of 10 years before they have their case considered, and unless they can prove some massive personality change it's always turned down again and again and they die in prison. There's no way the likes of Rosemary West or Peter Sutcliffe will be released even though they are currently eligible for parole.

Maybe he could get 21 years for each life lost? seems lacking still though....

Howard A Treesong wrote:I wish people would get a grip. When he gets to 21 years he won't be let out, it has to be shown that he won't be a risk to the public. Any chance of that happening? No. He'll likely die in prison.
...
What it means is that they have to wait a minimum of 10 years before they have their case considered, and unless they can prove some massive personality change it's always turned down again and again and they die in prison. There's no way the likes of Rosemary West or Peter Sutcliffe will be released even though they are currently eligible for parole.

No offense, but this more than slightly disturbs my sense of justice.

No person should be imprisoned until they're deemed not to be "a risk to the public." IMO sentences should be fixed to an objective condition or event, not something as vague as "not a risk to the public."

biccat wrote:
"Illegitimate" was implied.

So you consider cowardice and illegitimate to be synonymous?

You must lead a very unpleasant life.

The guy was a coward, too afraid to go against someone who could actually fight back. Once he was confronted by armed officers he surrendered, if he was really a balls to the wall guy with some guts he should've shot at them instead of just giving up. The guy killed defenseless kids while tricking them into thinking he was a police officer. The guy was a coward, is a coward, and will always be a coward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Cowardice is when you are afraid of something that society holds you should not be afraid of, and your fear governs your actions.

As a little green jedi once said; "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.".

Suffering leads to redemption. Redemption leads to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation leads to re-election.

halonachos wrote:The guy was a coward, too afraid to go against someone who could actually fight back. Once he was confronted by armed officers he surrendered, if he was really a balls to the wall guy with some guts he should've shot at them instead of just giving up.

No, not really. That might be what you would have done, but you presumably aren't going to go to a youth camp and kill children.

There is no reason to believe that fear was an issue of any kind.

halonachos wrote:
The guy killed defenseless kids while tricking them into thinking he was a police officer.

They could have, and may well have, tried to defend themselves. I imagine that they likely fled in terror, being generally unwilling to suffer an unpleasant circumstance (that's the definition of cowardice, by the way).

If it was a politically motivated attack, and they targeted children, the end game would be to instill fear into people that oppose. However, this guy could just be a whacko, or it could be a bit of both. Terrorist attacks are usually used to instill fear of the people, to doubt their government and want change. It almost always back lashes though.

They could have, and may well have, tried to defend themselves. I imagine that they likely fled in terror, being generally unwilling to suffer an unpleasant circumstance (that's the definition of cowardice, by the way).

Logical and also true.
Just as cowardly the lone out of context action of shooting young people is just as cowardly is it to run away. Thus if one claims the definition of not being a coward is to assault superior forces then the same definition ought to hold true the other way.

In a perfectly logical world, that is if people could turn of their innate cowardly selfs and think logically the gunman would have never been able to do what he did since the masses of people could simply overpower him instead of acting out of self preservation (cowardly).
There is no way a lone person amidst a hundred people could survive if they all to a man rushed him, he would spray-kill 15 people and then be overmanned whereas if people ran away each tending for themselves they were easy picking.

Bear in mind that this is purely a theoretical thought, I claim in no way to have a high moral ground or claim that I myself would have ran towards the bullets. Just saying a hive mentality would have suited the survival rate in that situation.

I also find dogmas way of turning the coward card the other way pretty much brilliant. If the gunman was a coward for not facing elite troopers outgunning and outnumbering him then the same can be said about the civilians not facing him in turn. Who, when and what is a coward is thus highly dependent on subjective views. That which we find abhorrent is easily compartmentalized as "cowardice".
It can also be tied in with biccats comment of the israelis in 48 facing superior opposition, being both outgunned and outnumbered and still kicking behind...well duh, the were forced to, it was fight or die with no option for better terms or other "cowardly" behaviour. Just as on the Norwegean island. Fight and have fewer die or flee and die almost to a man, cowardly or human nature who can tell?
The instance where the taliban prisoners stormed their guards (in the Walker incident) can be had as an example, they were outnumbering the guards but unarmed and faced certain death rushing armed people but still prevailed due to a hive mentality although they had the luxury of time to plan and agree to this action, something the Norwegeans never had.

dogma wrote: I imagine that they likely fled in terror, being generally unwilling to suffer an unpleasant circumstance (that's the definition of cowardice, by the way).

Cowardice or self preservation? Surely, at some point you have to say ‘it’s better to live to fight another day’?