Challenging The Nursery-School Nonthink That Terrorists Are "Cowards"
I thought of this in September of 2001, when George Bush called the terrorists cowards and when Bill Maher -- correctly -- refused to do so: "Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
it likely cost Maher the show, which was cancelled that summer.
Theodore Dalrymple rightly takes on British Prime Minister Theresa May for calling the London Tube attack "cowardly." He writes in City Journal:
The Tube attack was not a cowardly action: it was evil as well as stupid, and many other things no doubt, but it was not cowardly. Planting a crude bomb does not require, perhaps, quite so much bravery as it does to blow yourself up, but no one with any imagination can suppose that placing a bomb in a public place is an undertaking for a coward, or that it requires no courage.On the contrary, it requires considerable courage to do such a thing; if it did not, it is probable that there would be many more bombs and terrorist attacks than there already are. To place a bomb like this, one must face the risk of premature explosion and mutilation, the risk of being set upon by witnesses, and the likelihood of being caught and spending years in prison. These are not risks that most of us would care to take.
Understanding that helps us understand the ways that Islam is different from other religions practiced in modern times.
I say that as an atheist.
However, as I've said before, I can get behind all the Jesus stuff of "feed the poor," "care for the sick..."
When I gave my TED talk, one of the ladies I spoke with afterward said she goes out every week with people from her church to give stuff to the homeless -- stuff like new socks and granola bars in plastic bags.
If you're living on the street, a new, clean, fluffy pair of socks is pretty great. If that's where your religion leads you, well, I don't have a problem with it -- and, in fact, I think it's pretty great.
However, getting back to the stretching of terms, Dalrymple continues:
There is an unpleasant corollary to May's statement: if even part of what is wrong about leaving a bomb in Parson's Green station is that it is a cowardly thing to do, then a terrorist attack that is more direct, and hence less cowardly, must be better, from a moral perspective.Are we to admire terrorists who stare their victims in the face, or put themselves directly in self-harm's way?
In contrast to the bullshit-as-usual of Theresa May and other politicians, here is some matter-of-fact honesty from an Imam on how Islam is spread by the sword -- forced on non-Muslims. He is Sheikh Suleiman Anwar Bengharsa, head of the Islamic Jurisprudence Center in Clarksburg, Maryland, and he gave this lecture in Toronto, Canada in 2010:
He explains the much-distorted "Let there be no compulsion in the religion," which he says means that you can't force a person to believe in Allah and Mohammed, but you can force the person to live by Sharia.
Here's a take with the history, which explains a lot -- oh, and the correct statement, "there is no compulsion in religion...":
Muhammad's message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years, when he didn't have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last "revealed," and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.Though most Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..." (See Bukhari 1.2.24)
Getting back to the Sheikh in the video, the purpose of jihad, he explains, is not to force people to convert to Islam but it is to establish Sharia -- which forces them to obey the laws of Islam, which are antithetical to individual rights, women's rights, gay rights, and the right to life of any person who wishes to leave Islam.
Note how, at the end, he notes that once Muslims societies are established -- like by the Taliban in Afghanistan -- Muslims around the world don't pick up and go live in them. For example, he explains about the Taliban rule, Muslims around the globe were all "Hey, the Afghanis have no food -- how will I eat?"
Instead, Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries gravitate to Western societies -- which yes, with all their freedoms and the inventions and improvements to life that come out of individual rights, make them vastly better societies to live in than Islamic ones.
"Instead, Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries gravitate to Western societies -- which yes, with all their freedoms and the inventions and improvements to life that come out of individual rights, make them vastly better societies to live in than Islamic ones."
Yea, and there isnt anything unique to Islam about this.
Muslims are repelled by the lack of traditional values in the west just as Californians are repelled by rednecks and people who vote republican.
So they move to Colorado, Texas and Wyoming for the low taxes, low crime and low real estate prices only to vote for the same sort of high taxes, light rail, sanctuary cities, Loose ID vote fraud and gun laws that made California such a hell hole.
They all think that *this time* it will be different, and they can have their cake and eat it too, cariving out their nice little SJW welfare state with governnt funding all the right things, until all the sudden the bridges start collapsing and the roads fill with unrepaired potholes that were somehow just magically repairing themselves before you diverted all that moolah to the gender studies department and the commission to study global climate change.
What these people lack is any historical economic knowledge or the kind of social reflection it takes to recognize *cause and effect* and the importance of capitalism, culture, values and the rule of law.
*
Isab at September 19, 2017 10:24 PM
An old girlfriend took the Mahar position regarding the "courage" of the 9/11 murderers, and we had one of the most satisfying arguments of my lifetime. (Wonderful woman, but a typically inane lefty.) I shoulda took notes.
But I didn't, so let's reflect for a moment on the generally stingy & terrified character of human nature.
People don't want to have to work hard. They don't want to have to make difficult changes to their lives, especially when those changes are permanent. They don't want to surrender beliefs given to them in childhood by the people who raised them, even when those beliefs are readily challenged and unrewarding.
And when people do make an effort of any small size or limited context, they want it regarded as a tremendous sacrifice, an enterprise of incalculable righteousness and consequential glory. A favorite example is this incidental scene from "Amelie," wherein the gamine dreams of returning a few lost toys to a child long since grown up... But if her gesture isn't suitably admired, she'll move on through her life in comfortable selfishness. The human heart bargains with its own laziness: 'Maybe I'll have to do something unpleasant someday, but it will only be for *that one time,* and then I'll be able to relax."
But fantasies of single warrior combat also gratify our cynical belief about odds: 'On any given battle, maybe the wind will be at my back, so I can achieve a freak victory in a couple of seconds, and spend the rest of my life telling people I was completely confident all the while'.
Or, you can judge the bravery of the act by the voltage of its practicalities: How much courage is involved in slitting a flight attendant's throat? (Does anyone remember that TV awards show a few years ago where a rapper punched a distinctively milquetoast musician named Moby? Even as a caveman-level demonstration of aggressive masculinity, it was transparently weak tea.)
How much courage was involved in exploiting any of the vulnerabilities in airline travel on 9/11? (Remember, investigators later concluded that in each of the four attack crews, only one or two team leaders knew they were on a suicide mission.)
In the chaotic & primitive cultures of their childhood —warlord-ruled villages in deserts and lawless 'Big Man' neighborhoods— these attackers know their transgressions would have been answered by reckless violence on their whole families, and perhaps upon an entire block or valley.
Their sensitivities are correct: MODERNITY WILL ALWAYS BE ABOUT SOFT TARGETS. Building a life in contemporary civilization requires all kinds of continuing courage: To trust in the love of a woman, to educate and market yourself, to know how to compose and follow through on contracts and agreements.... Growing up in our cultures requires all kinds of courage, we just don't see it because it's baked into our habits.
But these guys aren't up to it. The Las Vegas contingent of attackers spent their last night in a strip club... Is there any less courageous venue for a final experience of eroticism?
Nope, sorry to have to say this... But I think my old girlfriend, and Bill Maher, and Dalrymple and perhaps our own Amy are confessing an especially childish view of courage when they ascribe it to terrorists.
Courage happens over time, and builds things. It's important but no fun, which is why we admire those who have it.
Crid at September 20, 2017 1:34 AM
"coward" is supposedly a very bad thing to be and when you're casting about for pejoratives, it comes to mind.
There are a number of ways to call somebody evil, but I think "loser" and its partners is also apt.
Richard Aubrey at September 20, 2017 4:27 AM
I don't like Trump, but I think his "losers" was far more deterring than "cowards."
And Crid, it takes courage to overcome our fear of pain and death -- even if you believe you are getting virgins in "heaven" and the express path to salvation that gullible Muslims are promised for martyring themselves to advance the religion. (This actually is the case -- the express path to salvation is said to be given to martyrs for Islam.) Palestinian Authority also gives payment in this lifetime to families of the murderer of Jews, whether that murderer is dead or alive and in prison.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2017 5:07 AM
"People don't want to have to work hard. "
Yeah, "cowardly" is not quite the right word; "lazy", as we define it in the West, is closer. It's lazy in two respects. The first is that, in their own religion, it's regarded as a moral short cut to Heaven. As long as you're engaged in jihad (or can make people think you are), you can behave however the hell you want and Allah will look the other way. The second is that it's also a short cut around political debate; the terrorists are trying to accomplish through intimidation that which they know they can't accomplish by debate and intellectual engagement. I daresay few people in the West would choose to live under fundamentalist Islam if all of the terms and conditions of such were laid out in front of them unambiguously.
Cousin Dave at September 20, 2017 6:11 AM
And Crid, it takes courage to overcome our fear of pain and death
For nihilists who are members of a death cult? nah, I think not.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 20, 2017 6:37 AM
I daresay few people in the West would choose to live under fundamentalist Islam if all of the terms and conditions of such were laid out in front of them unambiguously.
I don't know about that. Lots of people seem to want a big-daddy figure to make them feel safe, with distinct rules everyone needs to follow, even if those rules are stupid and destructive. Not just religious rules, either. There's plenty of devotion to a form of secular fundamentalism where the state stands in for God and parents.
MonicaP at September 20, 2017 7:06 AM
As long as you're engaged in jihad (or can make people think you are), you can behave however the hell you want and Allah will look the other way.
That's the hook used to get seemingly non-radical muslims to join the cause: you've lived a sinful life and will burn in hell, but if you do this one thing Allah will expiate your sins for you. One of the descriptions of a suspect in the recent Parsons Green bombing is that he liked girls and modern music.
Did he also drink, and *gasp* like to dance?
I R A Darth Aggie at September 20, 2017 7:29 AM
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." ~ Wilhelm Stekel
And yet, suicide is the coward's way out? Gotta disagree with you on the idea that the 9/11 hijackers displayed courage in any way that is admirable.
If they had been trying to fight their way through an entrenched enemy, a la the Light Brigade at Balaclava or the BEF at the Somme, perhaps. Had it been a suicide mission in the tradition of the Doolittle Raid or the Greeks at Thermopylae, perhaps. It was none of these things. As Crid points out, evidence indicates that not all of these "courageous" throat slitters knew they were on a suicide mission.
Courage? The firefighters who rushed into the buildings on that day to rescue people despite wanting to live to tomorrow, not knowing if they would be able to get out or if they would choke to death in the smoke and dust, yes. The ones who wanted to die in a blaze of glory taking out a big building so their names would be enshrined in the hall of martyrs, no.
For a Bill Maher, comfortably ensconced in an easy chair in a temperature controlled room with a full bank account, hijacking a plane, killing passengers and flight crew, flying that plane into a building, and perishing in a fiery explosion seems terrifyingly courageous. Had those hijackers simply slit their wrists in the bathtub or shotgunned a school (a la Columbine) until the police arrived to kill them, would Maher (or our own blog hostess) be praising their courage? One thinks not.
Perhaps there is courage in suicide, of a perverse sort. Choosing to pull back the veil and cross over without knowing what's on the other side. But killing people who can't shoot back isn't courage, it's psychosis.
I'm disappointed in Dalrymple. He's normally a keen and insightful observer of human behavior. Planting a bomb that kills defenseless commuters is hardly the model of courage we want our children to emulate. Would he call Ted Kaczynski brave? George Metesky?
Perhaps they, too, exhibited a perverse courage. If so, then we need to find a better way to distinguish what we consider an admirable trait from the psychosis of mass murder.
Conan the Grammarian at September 20, 2017 7:55 AM
crid: ✅
Conan: ✅
Jeff Guinn at September 20, 2017 8:21 AM
Another thing to keep in mind: By calling the terrorists "cowards," George W Bush was diminishing their sacrifice. He was sending a message. "If another one of you terrorists does an attack like this, I'm going to go on TV and call you a coward as well. Everyone is going to remember you as a coward. Is that what you want?"
Fayd at September 20, 2017 10:00 AM
> it takes courage to overcome our
> fear of pain and death --
That would seem less trite if you'd take the point: Most of the 9/11 attackers didn't know they were going to die, or even risk much pain. Terrorists tend to survive, and to smirk thereafter.
These people are essentially hillbillies who know they're being excluding from modernity's compelling pleasures because they don't have the balls to adapt.
They haven't "overcome" a fucking thing... That's our topic precisely.
Crid at September 20, 2017 1:32 PM
I agree with Crid and Conan, but I have a particularly tough question for each of you:
You are healthy. What must you do to be at the controls and purposely fly into a building and certain death?
*I* am afraid of death. I would have to overcome that fear to do anything which risks my life. I suggest that the bulk of people have never considered the question I have just put to you, and so they agree with "coward" because fear is the only thing they can imagine in such a case. Most do not have a cause they would die for.
When you overcome fear to accomplish something, what is that?
Radwaste at September 20, 2017 3:28 PM
PS: Please don't confuse "brave" with "heroic". The cause you die for can be despicable without changing the level of personal commitment to get the chosen job done.
Radwaste at September 20, 2017 3:52 PM
> What must you do to be at
> the controls and purposely
> fly into a building and
> certain death?
Evil.
Though (yet) again, you should note that the vast majority of the hijackers didn't know they were on a suicide mission.
Crid at September 20, 2017 3:53 PM
When considering all the demented motives and corrupted enthusiasms in the interior life of a murderous terrorist, it's a pathetic and needy sort of princess who reaches elbow-deep into the cesspool to heft one particular bolus into the sunshine overhead and announce—
Maher is trying to share something childish about his own innermost self.We don't need any of it.
Crid at September 20, 2017 4:06 PM
I suppose you could run the 9-11 highacking as a rational operation for a noble purpose up until the building was coming up in your windscreen.
It wouldtake self control not to flinch at that moment.
Richard Aubrey at September 20, 2017 4:27 PM
What is with you people?
Crid at September 20, 2017 4:42 PM
> I suppose you could run the 9-11
> highacking as a rational operation
> for a noble purpose up until...
Crid at September 20, 2017 4:59 PM
Rad, while you may be afraid of death there are people who aren't. I'm personally indifferent to my own demise. For me to engage in very dangerous behavior or suicidal behavior isn't brave since my survival isn't much of a concern for me. That is not typical but it is also not unique.
Ben at September 20, 2017 5:13 PM
Do we even know if Mohammed Atta had a fear of death? Or was he a psychopath who desired death in a fiery and very public suicide? Are you assigning "courage" to him because you fear death and cannot conceive that he did not? Let's not confuse overcoming considerable logistical difficulties with courage.
The enemy soldier who stays behind and covers his comrades' retreat is brave and, to his comrades at least, heroic. His actions would also be admired by his enemies, if not actively celebrated.
When RAF fighter ace Douglas Bader was shot down in World War II, the Luftwaffe thought so highly of him (despite the fact that he'd shot down 22 of their comrades), it allowed the British to fly over and drop a new artificial leg for him as one of his original ones had been badly damaged in the subsequent crash.
So, who is celebrating Mohammed Atta's courage? Should we be?
Conan the Grammarian at September 20, 2017 5:19 PM
" Nursery-School Nonthink," says Amy.
Sometimes people are so eager to be admired as counter-intuitive mavericks that they lose sight of the topic at hand.
Crid at September 20, 2017 5:36 PM
> Are you assigning "courage" to
> him because you fear death and
> cannot conceive that he did not?
Excellent question. To the list of frailties in the second comment above, add that people tend to presume their own inner lives are central to the human enterprise... That deep down, as regards this one thing (whatever it is), 'everyone else is just like me.'
Perhaps Mohammad Atta (et al.) didn't free himself from his social constraints enough to love his own life. Are we to admire that?
And Conan's implicit question: If he didn't fear death, where do you & Maher & Amy & Dalrymple see courage?
Crid at September 20, 2017 5:42 PM
AH, Darth covered that earlier.
Crid at September 20, 2017 7:03 PM
"It would take self control not to flinch at that moment."
At the speed they were going, it was too late to flinch. By that time, the outcome was inevitable. They couldn't have avoided the towers if they tried.
Cousin Dave at September 21, 2017 7:24 AM
Who is more courageous: the man who attacks unarmed civilians, or the man who attacks armed soldiers? The man who carries out a sneak attack in disguise, or the man who fights in uniform?
markm at October 6, 2017 6:35 AM
Leave a comment