I think it’s kind of hard to comment on the “bravery” of something that someone else does - because everyone’s mind is different, and bravery as I see it is about overcoming one’s own individual fears in order to accomplish something. Everything that we know about the suicide bombers and the culture that they come from is ultimately filtered through the media in some way, unless you actually know some Jihadists personally and have talked to them on an individual basis. Here’s what we know about the 9/11 bombers: they killed a lot of people, they sacrificed their own lives in the process, and they did it, supposedly, in the name of their religion. Anything that went on inside those guys’ heads before it happened is a mystery to us.
Here’s a hypothetical for you all. In the film Dr. Strangelove (I guess I’ll use spoiler tags on the off chance that there’s anyone who hasn’t seen it.)
the bomber pilot manually opens the damaged release mechanism, knowing he will fall to earth with the bomb and be killed. He mistakenly believes he is defending his country, when he is in fact starting a war that others are desperately trying to prevent. While he believes he is doing good, he is actually doing unspeakable evil. Is he brave?
Your thread’s been done before. If they were afraid to die then it’s brave. If they’re a bunch of sexually frustrated religious moon-bats, then they’re just crazy.
Ehren Watada, for example.
I was taught that bravery meant willingness to face fear. I was under the impression that one who acts despite his own fear, instead of because of it; is to be considered brave.
If this is true, then I guess it wasn’t particularly brave to do what the hijackers did. If they were unafraid to hijack the plane, then they were simply unafraid. That doesn’t make them brave.
Sorry Magiver. I see you summed that up nicely already.
As a matter of fact, after reading more carefully, I see plenty of people summed it up.
Cite for their being unafraid?
He/she didn’t say they were; you’ll note all the ifs in his/her statement.
Well I did see all the “ifs”, but it seems an odd wording if the only point is to offer a hypothetical that is believed to be false:
Maybe we should let Nzinga clarify it instead of you second-guessing the meaning.
I do not think any suicide act can be called bravery. If the Jihadists were so brave, why do they not confront their governments to make life better for their families? Instead they listen to cowards like Osama Bin Laden. It takes greater courage to change a bad situation than to end one’s life.To kill innocent people and expect a reward for it is not bravery in my opinion.
Monavis
I dont think an individual can be ‘brave’ but i do belive they can commit a brave act. I fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan and there are some brave people on our side and on the side of the enemy.
The key thing that i think alot of people are missing is that respect goes hand in hand with bravery. I respect a person for being brave or commiting a brave act. If the respect is not there then it is not a brave act. Hence the whole 9/11 7/7 thing. Unless you respect then you wouldnt consider then to be brave. And it takes a certain type of enemy to be respected
I have no idea if they were or were not. I really don’t.
If they were afraid, I consider them courageous in their act, although I believe the act was wrong.
If they were unafraid, then they lose even the props that I had to concede for bravery and are reduced to just moronic monsters in my view.
I wish I knew what was in their minds before they did what they did.
So are you also arguing that the term is basically a propaganda term, used only for those you like? Doesn’t that rob it of most of its meaning? I mean, it basically then just becomes a empty term that means no more than that you like them or respect them or don’t: the issue of exactly what about their conduct is respectable and why vanishes.
As I asked before, if people think they can get out of calling them brave by saying them were just crazy or deluded, would you all then agree that they shouldn’t go to prison if they failed and were caught, but instead should be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?
“Missing”? Have you read the thread? That’s exactly what’s being discussed.
That would be a fairly accurate description of what they think they are doing.
They think the former is their best way of accomplishing the latter.
If only most people felt this way we would eliminate most war. Really, how often do forces (ours included) act against purely military targets only?
Well I’m pretty convinced that the hijackers thought they were doing something great - more’s the pity. I don’t give them any “props”, though. I think they were moronic monsters, but courageous nonetheless. I agree with you; I just don’t understand where this idea that they may or may not have been afraid comes from. I understand that you don’t know, but why even entertain the idea?
By ‘props’ I mean, the proper respect due. I have a certain respect for the character trait of courage. If they were indeed courageous, then they would still have done the wrong thing, but they would have earned my respect in the area of courage.
This is important to me, because once someone has earned my respect in any area, I can accept ideas from them more readily*. If I can do that, I can learn to understand them.
Even my enemies, I would like to understand. Trying to understand and learn from other people, be they good or bad, is one of my favorite things to do.
So I when I say I wonder if they were afraid to commit these acts, but did it anyway, I mean that I wonder if they did possess bravery. I wish I knew the answer to that.
*I will never accept the idea that what they did was right. I mean other ideas I may be resistant to.
I know what “props” means. I simply disagree that misplaced courage is worthy of respect. I do not respect people who are deluded. I don’t respect those who kill innocent people, whether they be Islamic jihadists or Christian abortion-clinic bombers or military or what-have-you. They may believe they are right, but I do not respect them for their misplaced beliefs.
Understand, perhaps, but respect - no.
I don’t respect them for their misplaced beliefs. I respect them in spite of it. All though I don’t agree with their beliefs, I can respect their courage.
I think you may be right though. I don’t think I should respect monsters. Somehow I do, though. Not as a whole, but sometimes I will see someone that everyone agrees is a horrible person and I can’t condemn them entirely, because they have earned my respect in some area that I deem important.
I really do think, now, that it may be a character flaw that I need to correct in myself.
Seems similar to a Star Trek episode: