The presumption is that terrorists, like bullies, will not only seek a tactical advantage, which is merely prudent, but will solely pick on easy targets, and will cut and run if credibly challenged. Whether or not the paradigm is correct, surely there is plausibility to it: what kind of person deliberately blows up a school bus, for example? Any decent person would rather put himself in harm's way, by mounting an attack on a military target, than sink so low.
Good argument, but against terrorism rather than calling terrorism cowardly per se. Blowing up a school bus is particularly revolting, but not in itself a 'cowardly' act. In the terrorist eyes, it's prudent and accurate: it causes maximum horror and grief, while minimising risk...
It's this rationale that leads the IRA to leave bombs outside military barracks or in popular pubs in army towns in the UK, rather than put on clear uniforms and try storming the barracks directly.
It's nauseating, calculated murder. But it isn't precisely cowardly. Reprisals in some form are still rather likely - do you believe that al-Quaida didn't expect the US to come in and hit Afghanistan, and hard? The 'cowardly' side of terrorism, IMO, is discreetly funding and aiding them, or supplying them, while staying quiet about your actions... or apologising for their actions while doing nothing about them. |
