I’m guessing that hiding behind a table is a a smarter thing to do than stand out in the open. That situation may not be a test of cowardliness or heroism.
Also, if you consider the US military in your scenario, it is a volunteer organization. So like the positions of fireman, police, military, and hazardous vocations I would think that it takes some bravery to even take on those roles. Those roles are known to put people in dangerous and possibly life threatening situations. That brings up the question is bravery equated with heroism?
I don’t really agree. First of all, what is it about the execution of, say, a man convicted and sentenced to death in the US, that makes it less cowardly than executing hostages for, in the eyes of the executioner, a capital crime? If there is any difference, it is that an executioner in the US is “only doing [their] job” or “just following orders”. If we’re talking about cowardice and bravery, the execution of a hostage is far less of a “safe” course of action.
My main disagreement, though, is with “no way to defend himself” part. I suppose you might call it more brave to offer someone a chance to defend themselves, but that’s blurring the lines between bravery and stupidity. No one, good or bad, cowardly or brave, is expected to make everything a “fair” fight. To me, that implies a lack of conviction. If you think someone deserves to die for a crime and must be killed, why would you leave it to chance?
I don’t think maintaining anonymty and denying any legitmacy or authority of those you fight against is cowardice. They are ntot tryng to work within the system. They are trying to tear it down
We do this in previous wars. Many vietnam vets came back with antipathy towards their enemy but they did not try to paint them as cowards. What valor or honor is there in fighting (and in sme cases dying) against cowards. I would rather be killed by a Klingon than a Ferengi.
I’m trying to figure out how killing a bound news reporter has anything to do with a willingness to fight and die.
Taking out your frustrations on somebody who is neither your enemy nor capable of defending themselves sounds like a damn good example of cowardice.
BubbaDog: I’m trying to figure out how killing a bound news reporter has anything to do with a willingness to fight and die.
Taking out your frustrations on somebody who is neither your enemy nor capable of defending themselves sounds like a damn good example of cowardice.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, if we’d any reason to believe that the job duties of the executioner is merely to (a) be a propagandist, and then (b) execute someone, and that there’s some kind of limited membership deal whereby that’s all he’s willing to do or likely to be asked or ordered to do, maybe. But then you’ll have to agree we’d have to similarly categorize all our interrogators, torturers, propagandists and executioners (whether they’re doing it merely because ordered or as volunteer and/or whether they derive any satisfaction out of it as a job well done).
Yes. Although I agreed with the drone strikes closer to 9/11 because many of the conspirators and supporters were still at large and thought they were safe in Yemen, Pakistan, and other countries. I stopped supporting them about 2005-2006. It’s just raining down death on defenseless people who, in many cases, we’re not even sure if they were actual terrorists.
To an extent. I would consider the victims of 9/11 heroes. Their deaths opened our eyes to the murderous determination of Al queda. I would also call the murdered journalists heroes because they did the same for isis.
There’s a difference between something “not making any sense” to you, and you just disagreeing with it. You’re confusing the two.
Personally, I’d like to consider that a victim has things done to them, while a hero actively does things to others.
With cowards, they flee from conflict, while evil people perpetuates it.
Its not cowardly to kill yourself in a plane crash to avoid prosecution if that was the only way they could have flew planes into buildings. I’m sure they’d be fine if other people did it and they stayed alive to fight
If you’re referring to the last part, it’s the fact that these people seem to think that suicide is a completely rational act, and therefore the person was completely aware that others would be hurt by it. It’s not and often they aren’t.
In this case, I agree “hero” is not the best term. But there are many places where a victim is a hero just for be able to put up with what happened to them. Generally speaking, this applies to the people who go through trauma but then come out the other end. They could have given up on life, but they didn’t. I do think that is still heroic.
I’m not sure there is a good word for what these people are, though. Victim doesn’t express the honor to these people. Martyr is close, but still not quite right.
One last thing: I can see an idea that reporters are heroes, but it would have nothing to do with them being victims. It would be because they chose to put themselves in danger in order to pursue a just cause. But they also have to be actually needed for that cause.
But the reporter who escapes unharmed but still risked everything is still just as much a hero.
Forgive me, but this is INSANE. and the exact problem the OP is talking about. How in the world can anyone become a hero by not doing anything? People become heroes because they ACTED heroically. They found themselves in an extraordinary situation where someone was in danger and they chose a course of action. If I’m snoozing on a plane at some terrorist blows it out of the sky, how the fuck am I a hero?
