Posted on 12/30/2007 8:35:43 PM PST by ventanax5
When President Bush described the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as cowardly, he chose precisely the wrong word. (He was not the only person to do so, but he was the most important one to do so.) In fact, it was a very courageous act: for it requires great courage to assassinate someone in the middle of a large and volatile crowd favourable to that person, and above all then to blow yourself up just to make sure that you have succeeded. Not many people have that degree of courage: I certainly don’t.
The two Islamic militants whose telephone call was putatively intercepted by the Pakistani security services, and who are claimed by them to have been the organisers of the assassination, were quite right when they called the two men who did it ‘brave boys.’ They were brave all right; I do not see how it can very well be denied. Even if the transcript of the telephone call turns out to be a complete work of fiction, the authors of it got something right that President Bush got wrong
(Excerpt) Read more at newenglishreview.org ...
We went round and round on this after 9/11.
We understandably object to referring to these guys as brave or courageous, since courage is considered a virtue and we dislike assigning any virtue to these guys.
Yet courage is defined as, “The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.”
Nothing there about the rightness or wrongness of the cause in which courage is employed.
The Waffen SS was one of the most evil organizations in history. Nobody ever realistically denied their courage. The world would be a much less dangerous place if evil men were always cowards.
While there are some senses of the word “courage” that do not apply to these guys, the most common ones certainly do.
suicide bombers are often on drugs.
no courage involved
Agreed. All this form of attack requires is an acceptance that you are already dead. For a man that has nothing left to loose is then free to perform any atrocity, any savagery, any act to support his “cause”.
Excellent point.
Courage refers strictly to the attitude with which one faces a challenge. It makes no moral judgments about the challenge itself.
Evil men can be courageous, and good men can be cowards.
This is beyond human comprehension to attibute any possible redeeming social value to assassins and/or homocide bombers! The word assassin speaks for it'self in that it starts with two complete asses and reminds me of this coward loving writer!!!
After writing these dull essays, the old coot probably takes long walks in the woods with his walking stick, pipe and dog, wearing his tweed jacket with leather inserts in the elbows.
Leni
I agree Auster makes an excellent point.
If you have something to live for, sacrificing yourself is a courageous act. If you have nothing to live for, or worse, you think you will get something better by dying, then killing yourself is selfish.
Bhutto had blood on her hands and $1.5 Billion dollars in the bank allegedly pilfered from the Pakistanis. Supposedly, the assassin missed and she killed herself while ducking for cover after foolishly exposing herself.
She was no saint, The assassin failed. Karma prevailed.
It ain’t courage or bravery, it’s indoctrination and brainwashing.
Frankly, I think it’s irrelevant and immaterial to the MAX!!!
Hey that's what I want to do when I retire!
Bhutto had blood on her hands and $1.5 Billion dollars in the bank allegedly pilfered from the Pakistanis. Supposedly, the assassin missed and she killed herself while ducking for cover after foolishly exposing herself.2 points.
She was no saint, The assassin failed. Karma prevailed.
I am there with you man....
Dictionary.com defines courage as:
the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.
When the tactic is to shoot a person, then press a button and have explosives rip you apart faster than your body can even recognize or register pain .... what courage is in that?
If you want me to believe the assassin had courage. Let him take his shots and then surrender to the crowd/authorities. Taking the bomb option is to specifically avoid pain, suffering, difficulty etc.
We've had worse riots after a bowl games. There is no anarchy. There was no autopsy, and yet you quote a coroner. No one knows what happened, however, she was smiling and waving while standing through the sun roof, so presumably she chose to do it. Hubris killed her one way or another and she was a crook and a daughter of a crook. Good Riddance.
Courage in pursuit of a despicable goal is no virtue, quite the reverse in fact.
That wasn’t courage; it was fanaticism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.