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
This sentence illustrates why terrorist attacks like the one in Ottawa are rightfully considered cowardly. He wasn’t “fighting” to “win”. He committed murder to express an ideological point.
An act of war, where uniformed soldiers in an organized military declare and wage war, would not be cowardly.
A masked man, in civilian clothing, shooting fellow citizens of his own country in the back, without warning, is not legitimate warfare.
Remember that cowardly attack on soldiers while they were celebrating Christmas? How dare somebody do something so treacherous on such a sacred day? Who was their dastardly leader ? Oh yeah, George Washington.
The question implies that innocents means: a) not guilty of any direct involvement warranting punishments, but also the way you phrase the question, b) as if innocents don’t take precautions to arm of defend themselves because they don’t expect anyone would want to attack them, they live in a country with laws, effective law enforcement professionals and an operative judiciary that dispenses justice in a speedy and fair manner while ensuring due process protections for the accused. Persons living in such latter circumstances as b) don’t normally feel the need to protect themselves, and could become victims of a determined criminal. It could not be considered cowardly to attack a person in possession of the means to defend himself, but even if potential victim is unaware, the sense of inevitability of justice becomes a protection for society, even if it should fail to protect the initial victims. So from that perspective, the terrorist would require some degree of bravery to carry out behavior in concert with his or her convictions. Perhaps even when suicide is involved, the assailant must come to terms with the consequences in the hereafter.
On the other hand, when an assailant can conceal his intentions such that even an armed person would be unable to respond in time, the person is being cowardly judging by Western standards, because we judge or perceive that he or she acts apparently without awareness of there being any negative consequences for themselves. Westerners, then, judge this to be cowardly. Those from the other society might rightly reflect on such abhorrent behavior as requiring bravery.
I don’t know if you saw the recent attack on the Israeli light rail station. The guy drove a car into a group of defenseless people waiting on a train to work, home, the store, etc. He killed a baby.
You think that guy was brave? Excuse me for the poor manners, but are you high or just stupid?
It’s cowardly to kill innocents. Sure, the attacker might get killed by police or later jailed. That, however, does not display courage. Because the courageous thing to do would be to raise an army, and have a good-old fashioned war with Israel, if you think it should be destroyed. Well, Arab culture tried that, a bunch of times. They lost repeatedly. Now, they’ve retreated to the cowardice of terrorism.
Same deal with the U.S. Try on the U.S. Army for size. They’ll kill you every time. A lot easier to blow up office buildings. This post sickens me.
Hey Foxman, George Washington attacked Hessians on the day after Christmas, 1776 in the Battle of Trenton. The Hessians were mercenaries from Germany hired by the British to fight the Continental Army in an on-going war. The Hessians were armed, uniformed combatants, as were Washington’s troops. Your comparison of Washington to a terrorist who kills an unarmed ceremonial soldier standing guard at a grave site in a time of peace is disgusting, and you should apologize.
Are you referring to the Battle of Trenton, which was fought between uniformed soldiers during a declared war, and took place on December 26, 1776?
“Indeed, since the terrorists usually plan to end up dead anyway, they really are not guilty of lacking courage.”
Except they embrace death. To them it’s a goal. I’m not sure “courageous” is the proper adjective for people doing that which they want to do, that which they think will be beneficial to them.
Otherwise, I’m pretty darned courageous every time I tee it up on a golf course, every time I scarf down a PB&J.
Terror attacks are called cowardly because terrorism involves targeting civilians (who aren’t armed) instead of legal combatants (e.g., soldiers) who are armed and trained to fight.
At some point it doesn’t matter if a terrorist is cowardly or brave, or who defines him by either word.
All that matters is our response to the terrorists’ actions. If our response is weak, we invite more of the same. If our response is strong, we may be able to stop future actions.
What shall we choose this day? and the next, and the next….
I like this expression. Rather than attempting to grapple (my remarks at #63) with the subjectiveness of the perpetrator, this nails the essential depravity of hiding in the shadows, and planning an attack on persons who are expected to be defenseless at the time of the attack, all for the purpose of manipulating others to behave as you prefer them to behave and think by playing on their fears, all without the truly scary prospect of having to confront your intended audience with the shallowness of your ideas.
It’s too easy for those who embrace death to die. What about having to face the consequences of your actions while still on the physical plane? How would it have been, if by some miracle, all the 9/11 hijackers could have been pulled from the wreckage they created, then stood trial for their actions? (It almost happened with Flight 93.) And face justice long after their glee is gone and cooler heads prevail? I think the scariest prospect for a terrorist is failing and getting caught. By the US or one of our allies in the war on terror. Because then their life is basically over.
…unless they’re sent to Guantanamo, in which case they stand a good chance of being released to fight again.
Exactly. Cowardly is: showing up to a gunfight with the only gun. The police are brave. Some of the intended victims as well. But it takes courage to hope for life while risking death. Suicide bombers and shooters are cowardly, because they risk nothing they value.
So are Predator operators, raining missiles down on Bad Guys (with collateral damage) cowardly?
Cowardly might be too strong a word (unless we also consider any uniformed soldier who works a desk job to be cowardly), but I’d have a pretty hard time calling ’em brave.
If a purple heart is not a possibility, then courage isn’t really part of the job description.
Christmas goes from December 25th to January 6th. Didn’t you know that?
Phenomenal point about the length of the Christmas season, Foxman. You’ve now shored up, beyond all doubt, your comparison of our nation’s founder to Osama Bin Laden.
I wouldn’t call drone operators cowardly. I wouldn’t call them brave either, esp. if they work stateside. If they’re in-country, they could be in a measure of danger, and are as brave as the next soldier.
But, the moral difference between drone operators and terrorists is clear: drone operators are under strict rules of engagement and do not intentionally kill innocents. Suicide bombers and other terrorists operate on the opposite principle. They choose their targets to inflict maximal injuries on the largest group of innocents against whom they can execute an attack. I mean, just think what they would do if they had the arsenal of the U.S. military, or even a third rate military.
And, this is the core of why I’m revolted by the premise of this thread. You’re saying that terrorists aren’t cowardly, but are actually fearsome, brave, etc. I can’t stomach ascribing virtues to a group of people whose primary mission in life is to blow up office workers, maim marathoners, kill commuters, smash babies with cars, and hide rockets in their own children’s schoolhouses.
P.S. Was it brave when Lt. Calley killed all those women and children at My Lai? He placed himself in danger–maybe another soldier would kill him and he faced the possibility (realized to some extent) that he would be held to account for his crimes.
My point here is that we would never, ever have this discussion about an American’s intentional killing of innocents, yet many in this thread seem to have a heartfelt belief that terrorists are brave souls. Uh huh. Step back a bit, and let loose of the moral relativism that unthinkingly guides so much thought in this country. These people are unqualified monsters.
Logo on a Club Gitmo shirt: “My mullah went to Club Gitmo and all I got was this lousy shirt.”
Please read more clearly.
I am not arguing that there is any GOOD in acts of terror. I am merely quibbling with the repeated assertion that terror is cowardice. Words mean things, and “cowardly” is not the right word. There are many words that ARE accurate – “evil” being a good candidate.
So posit that I live in 1935 Germany. Would it be cowardly of me to assassinate Nazi leaders?
Was it cowardly of Gavrilo Princip to assassinate Arch-Duke Ferdinand?
I’m reading plenty clearly. You’re saying that terrorists are not cowardly because killing people, even innocents, and risking death takes guts. Fine, I get that. But, with this argument, you are really saying that terrorists are brave. That blowing up a bus full of school children, while crazy and immoral, takes gumption, moxy, whatever, pick your modifier. They posses some warrior like qualities that are to be admired.
Perhaps some do. Perhaps those who stubbornly face down the US military knowing they will lose every engagement, but can tire an empire with casualties over time are brave or gutsy. But those who blow up offices, schools, trains, and airplanes, those who literally run down infant children with their cars, I refuse to admit that they’re virtuous in anyway. They’re scum.
I think everyone has the potential to do good or ill, and that as long as someone is alive, there is hope for them to make better choices than the ones they have made to date.
So as squishy as it sounds, I actually would avoid even calling my sworn enemies “scum”. Their choices are evil. But they remain humans, with the potential to do good. I do not want to dehumanize any humans – that way opens the door to genocide.
So, calling people who run over babies bad names leads to genocide? Ok whatever. Interesting thread.
Thank you iWc for pointing out our generally careless use of words. You highlight a subtly of words that is important.
gts, I think what iWc was trying to say is that it is better to characterize actions and choices as evil. Most of us blend the evil action with the characterization of the person, myself included.
iWc: Their choices are evil. But they remain humans, with the potential to do good.
While iWc didn’t explicitly state it, I think a cursory glance at history between 1939 and 1944 shows that dehumanizing people with simple words and bad names is one of the steps needed to achieve the broad social approval (or blindness) to murder said people.
So yes, attaching “bad names” to people, instead of actions, can lead to genocide. Especially if good people in the society don’t intervene.
Uh, I’m attaching bad names to people who run over babies with their cars on purpose. It’s like calling Nazis bad names because they murdered innocents. Yet, somehow, I’m a Nazi, or could easily slip into one, for calling terrorists cowardly for slaughtering children.
But, you’re really careful with words. Yeah right. This thread is nuts. I’m done.
GTS – I am flummoxed that we are in disagreement here!
My point is NOT the Big One: we ALL agree that Bad Guys need to be dealt with, and I am at least as violent as the next guy (except maybe Simon).
All I was making is a relatively small point: being upset or emotional is not license to lose our minds OR apply random negative labels. To fight evil, one must first identify it.
Please don’t take this thread personally, because it is not a personal attack.