From Against All Enemies:
Before lifting off again [in Air Force One on 9/11], Bush taped a statement to be broadcast only after he was airborne. “Make no mistake. The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.” At this point, they hardly seemed cowardly.
Maher lost his TV show for saying the same thing. Say what you will about the suicide terrorists, they are not cowardly.
Um, excuse me, but I do believe I read that Bob doesn't believe that the terrorists deserve merit. Rather, he is saying that what they did was not cowardly, even though it was evil. It took courage to do what they did, even though it was wrong. Read what he writes, not what you wished he had.
Posted by: Lisa | January 24, 2005 at 04:43 PM
With all due respect my beef is with the mischaracterization of the Islamic suicide bomber terrorists, not the people at Webster's. This is a hunch, but I don't think the editors there intended to engage in a debate on the moral relativism accompanying a dialogue about suicide bombings and what kinds of sneak attacks and murders might qualify as being "cowardly." Thus, I'll have to air my grievances here.
So...President Bush and others label the World Trade Center bombers as "cowardly." You take issue with this description, state that the suicide bomber terrorist were not "cowardly," and cite Webster's for the proposition that, "'cowardly' means 'lacking courage, contemptibly timid.'" You continue by offering, "[k]illing oneself for his or her beliefs is not a timid act, misplaced though it may be." By interference, and following this line of thinking, you seem to be suggesting that these terrorists were "courageous" and not at all "timid" in their actions.
In my earlier posts, I explained why I believe the suicide bombers were "cowardly" and "timid." I don't think a simple dictionary consultation advances this dialogue very far.
At what point might "killing oneself for his or her beliefs" be considered a "cowardly" act? What about a troubled husband who finds his wife engaged in an affair with another man and then impulsively chooses to kill his spouse, her lover and himself in an act of murder-suicide? Let us further suppose that the wife's lover had no idea that she was married. Would the husband's crime be considered "courageous?" Of course it wouldn't.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call that crime "cowardly?" If so, how does that example differ from the September 11, 2001 attacks? I wonder if the families of the thousands of innocent lives taken that day think the suicide bombers were not "cowardly?"
Honestly I'm surprised that anyone--except perhaps those carrying out such crimes--would suggest that these acts of terrorism were not "cowardly" and somehow rise to the level of "courageous." To my way of thinking, this simply is wrong.
To be sure, this is your blog and America respects all sorts of dissenting voices. That's a freedom our great country bestows and one that you won't find available under Islamic fundamentalist or fascist regimes--places that give birth to cowardly suicide bombers and other terrorists.
Posted by: John K. | April 08, 2004 at 10:04 PM
I think your beef is with Webster. Take it up with them. But please come back when you want to discuss the issues.
Posted by: Bob | April 08, 2004 at 03:24 PM
Here's another thought. You state that "[k]illing oneself for his or her beliefs is not a timid act...." Is a guy who commits suicide by swallowing an entire bottle of Valium "courageous" for killing himself? Of course not. So what's so "courageous" about killing oneself and taking 3,000+ unsuspecting and innocent victims along with you?
Posted by: John K. | April 08, 2004 at 01:53 PM
I still believe you are mischaracterizing these heinous crimes. What exactly is "courageous" about a suicide mission that kills scores of innocent civilians, whether it involves the occupants of the erstwhile World Trade Center buildings, or those waiting for a bus in Haifa? Wouldn't you say these sorts of acts are, in fact, rather "timid" (i.e., lacking self-confidence; shy) responses to a perceived wrong? After all, they are acts that cannot be carried out without the cover of cloak and concealment. That seems rather cowardly to me.
Posted by: John K. | April 08, 2004 at 01:36 PM
Yes, you mischaracterize my post. No where did I suggest terrorists “merit respect or admiration.” All Maher, Clarke and many other people like myself are saying is that despite our view that those who attacked the World Trade Center are our enemies and must be stopped, Webster’s Unabridged states that “cowardly” means ”lacking courage, contemptibly timid.” Killing oneself for his or her beliefs is not a timid act, misplaced though it may be.
What we need to keep in mind is that such terrorists can operate because there too many Muslims who mistrust and even hate the U.S. , not because we love freedom and Muslims don’t, but because they perceive that our policies have consistently harmed them over decades and that U.S. leaders seem to have little respect for their culture. Thus, many Muslims are indifferent to the terrorists among them because they see no reason to defend the U.S.
If over the past two and half years, had we focused on attacking and killing al Qaeda leaders, not invaded Iraq and at the same time rectified our Middle East policy and put pressure on Muslim leaders to open their governments to democracy, we might now have a majority of Muslims on our side and now see the withering of the terrorist movement. Instead, we’ve enraged Muslims by supporting the Israeli occupation and assassinations and repressive Arab regimes. With that backlight, the Iraq invasion is viewed as an attack on Islam, not Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Bob | April 08, 2004 at 12:41 PM
I respectfully disagree. Of course, the suicide terrorists aren't anything now. They're dead--past tense. Forgive me, but you, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Maher all seem to think that the terrorists' depraved acts somehow merit respect or admiration. Am I mischaracterizing your post?
I submit that most Americans wouldn't characterize the World Trade Center attacks as worthy of respect or admiration. I certainly wouldn't. Just how do these surprise attacks--costing some 3,000+ innocent lives--qualify as anything other than evil, immoral and, yes, cowardly acts?
Posted by: John K. | April 08, 2004 at 10:36 AM