Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is it Cowardly to Kill Innocents?
Why does everyone insist on calling terror attacks “cowardly”?
Surprising one’s opponent in a fight is a smart tactic, and one we use often ourselves. A shooter would be foolish to state their intentions in advance. When one fights, the primary goal is to win. So I think it is both mistaken and even deceptive to describe the act as “cowardly.” Indeed, since the terrorists usually plan to end up dead anyway, they really are not guilty of lacking courage.
Let’s call things as they are: It is not cowardly to try to kill innocent people. It is, simply, evil.
Published in General
No, it’s cowardice. The opposite of bravery is cowardice.
Of course. The keyword is “unarmed.” The fact that the shooting is drive by makes it even more of a cowardly act. The shooter is making himself a moving target and is more or less hidden from view. Thus, he is less vulnerable, less subject to being identified – not even giving the defenseless victim the opportunity to see his assailant. Cowardly indeed.
If two drug dealers, armed and dangerous, fight it out over some business issue, then I would not say it would be cowardly. It could be evil. It could be criminal. “Evil” and “cowardly” are not mutually exclusive. There is no rule of grammar that I know of that says that two or more adjectives or adverbs cannot describe the same word.
Below, please find the antonyms for “bravery” from Thesaurus.com. Number one is “cowardice.”
An excellent response by Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, in PJ Media.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/5-insane-but-utterly-predictable-reactions-to-the-ottawa-jihad-attack/?singlepage=true
These people are not insane, these are their true religious beliefs. Otherwise, there would be mass protest and demonstrations by muslims world wide against these practices. All you hear is silence except for a dozen or so, and there are 1.6 Billion muslims in the world.
Nowhere in the thread does someone claim to say you can’t use multiple adjectives, adverbs, or anything else – the point is whether or not their actions should be described as cowardly.
Cowardice is running from a fight. Bravery is running to the fight. I don’t think fanatics walking up to people and shooting them, knowing that if they die, they will reap some reward, falls into either category. Self-detonations, etc, fall into this same no-space that is neither bravery nor cowardice.
I’m still comfortable calling it fanaticism. We could probably better describe these actions as dastardly, rather than cowardly. But we are really splitting some hairs here.
It seems to me from my reading of history, cowardly seems to be fighting in a way that the enemy does not like or agree with.
In the old days armies fought standing toe to toe. Those that hid behind rocks to fight were evil, uncivilized cowards. Or were they? For this is how we fight now?
Simular things were said about the use of arrows, crossbows, airplanes, airplane bombings, cruise missiles, atomic bombs, drones, tanks, etc.
Cowardly and evil seems to mean fighting in a way that we do not know how to respond too.
Kudos, iWc! Words *mean* things, and darkness shouldn’t be allowed to hide in platitudes. “Deliver us from evil…”.
I would not describe either of the recent incidents as cowardly, and I’m with iWc that they best described as evil.
It could be said that the car driver in Israel did not know who would be at the point of impact, that he did not pre-select his vicitims. He did however select a location and make decision to target non-military victims.
The Canadian murder targeted a symbolic solder in the heart of a Western government, unwisely left unguarded by men with empty guns. Thankfully the Sgt-at-Arms was ready and able to fight.
Why we find it more abhorrent that a victim was an American citizen, a 3-month baby, a 7-year sibling a 40-year parent, or a symbolic soldier is beyond me. They are considered infidels by jihadists, and worthy of murder for that reason alone.
The people who support this style of evil fanatic in his cause would describe him as brave–for being willing to die for his cause. Just because we are opposed to the premise of his cause does not make him a coward.
The bigger question is not what to call these specific acts, but are we willing to define an evil cause and work for on behalf of good to halt evil?
This is the nature of the ongoing battle for the triumph of good over evil.
It is pure evil.
The Canadian Press are very good at keeping the evil killer’s name a picture out and putting in the victim everywhere.
I like the idea of the media being allowed to say that they had shrivelled testicles and a small member. According to the male brain, this is a huge insult and will deter killers more than the death penalty.
If only insults were all that were needed to stop this particular strain of evil…
I don’t really disagree with either of you, certainly as it pertains to children. I suppose I’m doing what I usually try to do when I don’t understand something; put a specific, definitive label on it!
Liz, you may need to know, sooner than later, about Islam. You are a business woman and travel frequently, so preparation and knowledge is a must. What you are getting is piece meal, a little from newspapers, a little from blogs, a little from news programs, and no real knowledge of who is telling the truth. One of the best web sites is citizenwarrior.com info only without rancor or hatred. Start with: The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html
Next, watch an 8 minute video of “Three things about Islam you didn’t know.”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/07/new-video-three-things-about-islam.html
Or, you could watch the video first, less time than the article. You can sign up with CW for e-mail alerts when something comes up that is changing the situation on the ground.
No worries Kay; I’m a devoted follower of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and my opinions on Islam are heavily influenced by her previous experiences as a Muslim and her observations, in particular, of the Muslim Brotherhood of which her brothers are members.
I do believe that many leaders of jihadism- the late bin Laden and the current ISIS hierarchy and even secular killers such as the deceased Saddam Hussein and his sons certainly qualify as sociopaths but many of those they brainwashed and continue to influence were as malleable as Hitler Youth.
Cowardly in the sense that their victims are taken by surprise without any defense?
Agreed that they wouldn’t see this as cowardly as they are doing it out of religious fervor and “In the Name of Allah the Great!”.
As always, it all depends on how one looks on the situation.
How is it cowardly?
Fighting involves rules. One of the disappearing obligations of boyhood was to learn the protocols of a “fair fight”. Fighting fair was, of course, a disadvantage, but it was a requirement for honor.
Shooting innocents is cowardly because the shooter is shrinking from the norms of fair play demanded by honor so he can avoid danger.
John Wayne would rightly call an ISIL loser or a Chicago gangsta a feminized pansy.
It behooves us to distinguish us between boyhood fights and attacks designed to kill. Boys are supposed to learn that there are honorable ways to fight.
But when engaged in a fight to the death, it is senseless to fight honorably. If someone comes at me with the intent to kill, I will use every trick imaginable to win. I have even drilled in those very tricks, and my children have done the same. There is nothing remotely cowardly about it.
Agreed, iWc! When I learned to shoot, I realized I was training to deal with anyone coming to do mischief to me and/or my family. I would kill such a person without even giving it a second thought.
It’s a tragedy for those people caught up in it, especially the families of the victims.
But to attack the soldiers and the Parliament of a country is an act of war. Canada is already at war with the Islamic State.
Amen.
Evil can be brave, but so what? It doesn’t have to be cowardly to be evil.
Although calling evil acts cowardly may strip them of some of their attractiveness to some, so perhaps it’s a good idea.
@#43:
Not sure where you are from, but we were always taught that a fair fight was the one you won.
I believe it is said that history is written by the victors. If this violent sect of Islam wins then their methods will go down in history as entirely reasonable, if the west wins they will be seen as cowardly, evil nut jobs. The verdict is still out at the moment.
The killing of innocents: cowardly or evil? I’d be interested in your take on Amalek. I know they are considered evil. Are they not also considered cowardly?
Great example! Yes, we are commanded to destroy Amalek because they attacked the weak and did not fight fair.
But the same answer remains: attacking innocents is evil incarnate. It is only cowardly if they did it because they were sure they could get away with it.
In Amalek’s case, it could have been cowardice. But the Islamic terrorist knows he will lose his life.
Terrorists are cowardly. They don’t wear uniforms, hide among civilians, and almost exclusively target civilians who can’t fight back. Why don’t they put on a uniform and identify themselves during a fight, and attack a military target with the objective of winning against it? Their goal is to terrify a society into submission by cowardly refusing to engage in the proper rules of warfare. Hiding behind women and children and using them as human shields to blame Israel while wearing no uniforms, or attacking commercial airlines with the objective of flying them into civilian targets takes no balls. Go pick up a gun and identify yourselves by wearing uniforms and attack a military target. No one is saying you have to announce when and where you are going to attack. But what they do is the definition of cowardly. Picking up a weapon and going after a bunch of unarmed civilians who don’t expect it and can’t fight back is not brave. Picking up a weapon with a uniform on and going into the field of battle to fight others who can fight back is. One act requires honor and the other is pure cowardice. Terrorists may not give a damn about the consequences, but that doesn’t make them brave. It just makes them so consumed with hate and radical ideology that they don’t care.
Very glad to hear someone say this.
The one thing I’d add is that part of the incongruity of this is that the Jihadis seem to think sort of thing is very brave; I’d say it simply doesn’t speak to one’s courage one way or the other. One’s soul on the other hand…
Unfortunately, goats can’t read this, so it will have no impact on the terrorists’ love lives.
Addendum:
Using the logic of the “terrorists are cowards” argument one could make a much stronger case that American drone operators are cowards; I certainly wouldn’t make that argument — again, I’d say it’s courage-neutral — but it’s hard to see how there’s much honor to be found it pulling the trigger on people thousands of miles away. On the other hand, drone operators are unquestionably the good guys.
Good and evil are about morality.
Bravery and cowardice more about ego and respect.
It shouldn’t matter that people don’t respect drone operators so long as drone operators are doing the right thing.
I agree. They use the word “cowardly” to defame the person. The point of any war or battle is to win. One doesn’t level the playing field to “fight a fair fight.”
Good points.
It is without a doubt cowardly to shoot at a civilian who is not armed, who is not threatening you at that moment, and who is unaware that he is about to be attacked. The fact that an attacker expects to die in the attack does not mean that he is brave. It means that he is a psychopath who has so little regard for life that even his own means nothing to him. There is no virtue or bravery in the fact that he gives up something that is of no value to him.
We are re-learning too late why the Geneva Conventions etc exist in the first place. The Laws of War are designed to minimize casualties, and the Geneva Conventions are designed to deter irregular warfare by posing a choice between combat and extermination.
We find all war abhorrent, but there is as much range between just and unjust war as there is between war and peace — infinite gradations.
Our pathetically wrongly-decided Supreme Court cases such as