# Are suicide-attack terrorists really "cowards?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226 "2016-04-27T01:11:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/21 "2016-04-27T09:04:23Z")
It’s cowardice because any officer who willingly sends his soldiers to certain death - not as an act of desperation, but as policy - while he himself remains safe, is in fact a coward and worse. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/22 "2016-04-27T09:17:16Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It’s cowardice because any officer who willingly sends his soldiers to certain death - not as an act of desperation, but as policy - while he himself remains safe, is in fact a coward and worse. Worse, quite possibly, but he’s not _necessarily_ a coward, unless his motive for not leading the mission himself is cowardice. If his motivation is to avoid dying so that he can stay around to organise and conduct more such missions, and he believes the missions themselves have strategic value, I don’t think he’s a coward. A monster, quite possibly, but not a coward. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/23 "2016-04-27T10:09:34Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Are we in danger of conflating two issues here? No, because an essential component of cowardice is that you are choosing the worse of two options. Decapitating a military currently waging an aggressive war with a surgical strike is not cowardice, it is _smart_. Calling it cowardly is as nonsensical as calling someone a coward for not sticking their hand in a garbage disposal unit. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/24 "2016-04-27T11:27:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > (snip)What if Ransom Stoddard had snuck up and shot Liberty Valance in the back? Would have saved Jimmy Stewart a beat down, and we’d be one newspaper editor to the good. It’s hard to look on that as a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/25 "2016-04-27T12:14:05Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It’s cowardice because any officer who willingly sends his soldiers to certain death - not as an act of desperation, but as policy - while he himself remains safe, is in fact a coward and worse. Targeting innocent civilians for mass murder is a cowardly act, even if the individuals who carry out the atrocity are better described as hopped-up zombies or shitheads. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/26 "2016-04-27T12:37:16Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Targeting innocent civilians for mass murder is a cowardly act, even if the individuals who carry out the atrocity are better described as hopped-up zombies or shitheads. I think that’s imprecise. Targeting innocent people is _evil_, but cowardice is about exposing yourself to risk. I agree that attacking civilians is wrong, but strapping a bomb to your chest is certainly more on the brave side of the chart than, say, piloting an attack drone. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/27 "2016-04-27T12:37:23Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Waging war effectively in the long term isn’t about meeting your enemies on their terms. I don’t understand why it is cowardice for someone who has disagreements with a more powerful opponent to choose not to confront the opponent where that opponent is the strongest. Applies to attacks on citizens, as well as guerilla attacks on military personnel/targets. I’m not sure I distinguish greatly between - say - the bombing of a civilian café or train station, and the truck bombing of the Beirut barracks. Actually, my preference would be that military personnel get targeted, because presumably they have assumed some portion of the risk and are expected to take some precautions. But I don’t see either as cowardly. I could imagine a number of other adjectives applying to such actions better than cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/28 "2016-04-27T15:12:44Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > The cowardice part comes when you strap a suicide vest to a twelve-year-old kid and send him into a marketplace and then detonate the bomb remotely. Exactly. I think people lose sight of the fact that not all suicide bombers are doing this willingly…and of those who are, most have been deluded into thinking that it’s Gods will (and that they will be getting some sort of reward for their act). ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/29 "2016-04-27T15:24:10Z")
Was it “cowardly” to drop atomic weapons on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Out of the 250,000 +/- deaths in those two cities, well over half were civilian “soft” targets. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/30 "2016-04-27T15:28:08Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > Was it “cowardly” to drop atomic weapons on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? > > Out of the 250,000 +/- deaths in those two cities, well over half were civilian “soft” targets. Would it have been braver to invade and kill millions instead? Also, both cities weren’t hit only because of the civilians, but also because they were legitimate military targets (military logistics points). You also have the fact that, while we had clear air superiority over Japan by then it was still more than possible that the Japanese could have shot back or sent up fighters. ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/31 "2016-04-27T16:07:24Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Would it have been braver to invade and kill millions instead? Also, both cities weren’t hit only because of the civilians, but also because they were legitimate military targets (military logistics points). > > You also have the fact that, while we had clear air superiority over Japan by then it was still more than possible that the Japanese could have shot back or sent up fighters. I don’t disagree with you. But upthread, the definition of cowardly seemed to be too elastic. War is full of decisions that while having X number of positives, also have some X number of downsides. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/32 "2016-04-27T20:52:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > . . . but cowardice is about exposing yourself to risk. I think this is where the problem lies: some of us have a secondary definition of the word, having to do with attacking people who are helpless. Strapping someone down and torturing them is cowardly, per this second definition. It’s slightly related to the first definition, because such a torturer has arranged things so he is not at risk. But the suicide bomber isn’t “at risk” from anyone else’s actions, and doesn’t consider the harm he will suffer from his own bomb to be a “risk” at all. It’s a design element of his plan. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/33 "2016-04-28T01:14:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I think this is where the problem lies: some of us have a secondary definition of the word, having to do with attacking people who are helpless. > > Strapping someone down and torturing them is cowardly, per this second definition. > > It’s slightly related to the first definition, because such a torturer has arranged things so he is not at risk. But the suicide bomber isn’t “at risk” from anyone else’s actions, and doesn’t consider the harm he will suffer from his own bomb to be a “risk” at all. It’s a design element of his plan. Yeah, see, this is not a definition I’m finding in any dictionaries. And I’m unconvinced by your “slight relationship” argument. Sure, the torturer is not at risk. But equally the person who achieves his objectives through negotiation and diplomacy rather than through war is not at risk; does this justify us in calling him a “coward”? I think any meaningful concept of cowardice has to involve more than just the avoidance of risk; it has to involve a refusal or inability to do what is right out of fear of danger or unpleasantness. Someone who tortures, or sets terrorist bombs, because he thinks its an effective tactic to acheive his goals may be a monster, but he is not a coward. And he does not become a coward merely because the tactic that he finds optimal happens to be one that presents little immediate risk to himself. Why, I wonder, do we feel the need to stretch the definition of cowardice? I think it’s because we are the product of a culture which has been taught to value courage in a warrior. The Americans who dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did so at little risk to themselves; they are not regarded (in the US) as cowards. But we cannot concede that our enemies might be courageous since courage is taken to be a virtue and we cannot allow that our enemies might have any virtues at all. So when we avoid risk we are smart, but when they avoid risk they are cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/34 "2016-04-28T02:37:50Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Yeah, see, this is not a definition I’m finding in any dictionaries. Dictionaries cannot cover all connotations of words. > [@](#): > > And I’m unconvinced by your “slight relationship” argument. Sure, the torturer is not at risk. But equally the person who achieves his objectives through negotiation and diplomacy rather than through war is not at risk; does this justify us in calling him a “coward”? . . . The diplomat isn’t attacking anyone physically, so there isn’t any way he fits the definition. He may be browbeating and bullying someone orally, and that could be considered cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/35 "2016-04-28T02:56:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Dictionaries cannot cover all connotations of words. Well, no, but they aim to capture how words are in fact used. And none of them seem to be confirming your statement that “some of us” use the word “coward” in this sense. > [@Trinopus](#): > > The diplomat isn’t attacking anyone physically, so there isn’t any way he fits the definition. He may be browbeating and bullying someone orally, and that could be considered cowardly. Well, I have to point out that your original definition didn’t say anything about _physical_ attacks. And your second sentence seems to suggest that, in fact, it needn’t be confined to physical attacks. Plus there’s nothing in the basic concept of coward which suggests that cowardice involves an attack of any kind; your stereotypical coward skulks behind the lines, or simply runs away, in order to avoid being involved in any kind of conflict. It also seems to suggest that you’re introducing more than just the avoidance of risk into your extended concept of cowardice. You don’t consider the diplomat’s avoidance of risk to be cowardly unless it involves “browbeating and bullying”. But if somebody is engaging in bullying we don’t need to extend the definition of “coward” to embrace him, because we already have the perfectly cromulent word “bully” for that. In fact, now that I think of it, your new secondary sense of “coward” - one who attacks the defenceless- is in fact pretty much the long-established primary sense of “bully”. And while it is trite to observe that bullies very often _are_ cowards, the two concepts are distinct, and I think we lose something by merging them. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/36 "2016-04-28T03:18:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But the suicide bomber isn’t “at risk” from anyone else’s actions, and doesn’t consider the harm he will suffer from his own bomb to be a “risk” at all. It’s a design element of his plan. But there’s still death involved. Someone who jumps to his death from a cliff is at no risk from anyone’s actions but his own. But it still takes immense courage or despair to do something like that. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/37 "2016-04-29T14:51:24Z")
Yeah, that accusation is psychological bullsh!t. Only negative attributes can be attributed to baddies. Were Japanese kamikaze pilots cowards? Or was that different because it was official war? psik ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/38 "2016-04-29T15:25:12Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Yeah, that accusation is psychological bullsh!t. > > Only negative attributes can be attributed to baddies. > > Were Japanese kamikaze pilots cowards? Or was that different because it was official war? > > psik You might not be aware of this, but Japanese Kamikaze pilots were often shot down en-route to their targets. Often the planes themselves would fall apart or run out of gas or basically crash due to the lack of pilot skills of the young boys being put in the cockpit with minimal training. It wasn’t exactly the same as strapping explosives to yourself and walking into a mall… ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/39 "2016-04-29T15:31:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s the “backstabbing” element I admittedly haven’t spent much time consider the issue of the personalities of suicide bombers (frankly I was under the impression that a fair number of them were mentally ill – that the terrorists were typically strapping bombs to drooling retards), but for me it’s the backstabbing nature of the attack that makes it cowardly. Pearl Harbor gets a similar treatment. It was certainly a bold and audacious attack, but I think many Americans also think of it as cowardly, because they struck without warning, against people who were not engaged in a fight / war. It was a country-sized “sucker punch”, and nobody I know thinks a “sucker punch” is brave or courageous. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226/40 "2016-04-29T15:39:25Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You might not be aware of this, but Japanese Kamikaze pilots were often shot down en-route to their targets. Often the planes themselves would fall apart or run out of gas or basically crash due to the lack of pilot skills of the young boys being put in the cockpit with minimal training. It wasn’t exactly the same as strapping explosives to yourself and walking into a mall… I’m not sure how this is psychologically relevant. Either way, kamikazes and suicide bombers were willing and intending to die. That’s the important part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-suicide-attack-terrorists-really-cowards/753226.md?page=3)