Okay, I’m totally not understanding the claim that the attackers were cowards. Either the people saying that are using a different definition of “cowardice”, or perhaps they’re thinking of the attack’s mastermind(s) who stayed safely at home. m-w.com defines “coward” as “one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity”—perhaps the hijackers timidly crept to the front of the plane, and killed or incapacitated the pilots with disgracefully shaking hands?
Or perhaps you mean fear of facing their enemies directly in fair combat, instead of behind the controls of a deadly projectile? It’s a bit of a twist, but I might grant an argument along those lines. On the other hand, can it ever be cowardice if you know you’re going to die, regardless of how defenseless your target is?
Or maybe you mean the hijackers were too cowardly to buck their religious/jingoistic upbringing, and say “wait a minute, this is just wrong”? That one seems a bit more of a stretch, but it’s at least arguable.
Also: “Murdering the defenseless isn’t an act of bravery.”—the US is hardly a defenseless target. (Or, rather, would have been hardly a defenseless target if the first response system hadn’t been systematically hobbled… but I digress.) Under ordinary circumstances, the hijackers should have expected their planes to be shot down rather than being allowed to reach a densely-populated area. Insider theories aside, the hijackers had absolutely no guarantee of success and should have been up against quite steep odds. Furthermore, they saw the US as the invulnerable steel monster out to destroy their way of life (whether or not this is accurate). The people in the tower, left inexplicably defenseless that day, were just the monster’s Achilles heel.
Calling them “cowardly” seems to me more like an emotional bandaid—something to mitigate the overwhelming impact of what they did—than it sounds like either of the possible nuanced interpretations I’ve suggested, but I’m prepared to hear further explanation.
Okay, I’m totally not understanding the claim that the attackers were cowards. Either the people saying that are using a different definition of “cowardice”, or perhaps they’re thinking of the attack’s mastermind(s) who stayed safely at home. m-w.com defines “coward” as “one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity”—perhaps the hijackers timidly crept to the front of the plane, and killed or incapacitated the pilots with disgracefully shaking hands?
Or perhaps you mean fear of facing their enemies directly in fair combat, instead of behind the controls of a deadly projectile? It’s a bit of a twist, but I might grant an argument along those lines. On the other hand, can it ever be cowardice if you know you’re going to die, regardless of how defenseless your target is?
Or maybe you mean the hijackers were too cowardly to buck their religious/jingoistic upbringing, and say “wait a minute, this is just wrong”? That one seems a bit more of a stretch, but it’s at least arguable.
Also: “Murdering the defenseless isn’t an act of bravery.”—the US is hardly a defenseless target. (Or, rather, would have been hardly a defenseless target if the first response system hadn’t been systematically hobbled… but I digress.) Under ordinary circumstances, the hijackers should have expected their planes to be shot down rather than being allowed to reach a densely-populated area. Insider theories aside, the hijackers had absolutely no guarantee of success and should have been up against quite steep odds. Furthermore, they saw the US as the invulnerable steel monster out to destroy their way of life (whether or not this is accurate). The people in the tower, left inexplicably defenseless that day, were just the monster’s Achilles heel.
Calling them “cowardly” seems to me more like an emotional bandaid—something to mitigate the overwhelming impact of what they did—than it sounds like either of the possible nuanced interpretations I’ve suggested, but I’m prepared to hear further explanation.