Yes, I consider the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a cowardly act all the way
I appreciate your candor. The problem I am having is with your misapplication of the language.
Bringing bombing into modern context: do you really believe that carpet bombing a bunch of people in caves, or a bunch of soldiers on the ground, is an operation which requires winning some inner battle against fear?
The nature of an act, as regards cowardice (as opposed to whatever moral quality it may have), is not assessed by reference to whether or not the victims wear uniforms, but by whether or not the killer was at substantial risk such that he or she needed to draw upon inner strengths in order to act in the face of fear, and as to whether or not such inner strength was or was not found wanting.
It is no more "brave" to drop bombs on soldiers eating their lunch, than it is "brave" to drop bombs on hospitals. We do not have enough information to know whether such people are frightened in their heart, or whether they are capable of engagging in truly risky activities if the situation or the need were to dictate it.
Cowardice does not address whether people are evil, despicable, or merely practical. Some evil people are cowardly; and some of the most malignant people in history had a psychotic lack of fear.
The point of contention is whether certain people lack inner courage. I submit to you that the carpet bombing of helpless people is a one sided affair, which nevertheless does not prove cowardice in any way. It does not even suggest it.
The courage of people does not even get tested when their opponent is helpless. We do not know the courage of the hangman or the electrocutioner. When they kill another they take no risk, they meet no test of courage.
Nor does running and hiding from superior force have anything whatsoever to do with cowardice. Millions hid during the war to avoid death. This did not make them cowards. People like Anne Frank were not cowards by virtue that they tried to preserve their lives.
In terms of OBL, there is little to determine his inner sense of fear except by circumstantial evidence. It seems obvious that someone who gives up a life of leisure for a life of guerilla warfare, continuous risk, and probably a violent death--is less afraid of death or injury than most people. His religious fanaticism and belief in an imaginary purpose is a shield against fear and doubt. Such people are more than willing to give up their life for a deranged world-view of supernatural elitism.
We have our own examples of such fanaticism in the history of Christian Martyrdom. No matter how insane one may view their actions, a lack of bravery in the face of death can not be assumed in these people.
Most westerners consider OBL to be the enemy of culture, morals, freedom, and human progress. Indeed, we consider him the enemy of all of humankind, and of civilization itself. He sees people as fodder for a Supernatural Racist; he considers the killing of unbelievers to be his duty...and also the duty of all muslims.
Some degree of cowardice is natural to most human beings who have a love of life, and a desire to remain with their loved ones--and to not leave them prematurely. To equate this normal fear of death with the vicious, brutal, bloodthirsty, barbarous, and inhuman beast who is OBL...this is to sanitize through association.
Many cowards are very decent people. The fight or flight principle sometimes will cause people to place their safety over a particular goal. For instance, a particular person might cling to a life boat even though he knows that by letting go, he will have increased the chance that other people struggling for a place on the boat might thereby be saved. This is cowardice, yes; but it is not necessarily malignant.
Other people may walk into a room full of people and kill them all without any fear: People insulated from cowardice by their madness, or by their evil.
OBL may or may not be a coward. But his fanatacism would argue against the idea that he lives in abject fear. His personal choice of a lifestyle: a choice which guarantees risk and eventual death at his own or enemy hands, would argue against his being a frightened person.
Rather than waste words on the irrelevent question of whether or not he is a fearful person afraid of death; why not focus on what we know he is for a fact, and what is essential to his characterization: a vicious, brutal, inhuman killer; a murderous beast who is in every way the opposite of what civilized people cherish and value.
These points are beyond dispute. These are the points which separate him from the sensibilities of normal human beings; not whether or not he is frightened. His fear (or lack of such) does not separate him from us on any essential or critical moral level.
His evil acts turn the stomach of all decent human beings. It is these that are essential to how we view him--not whether or not he is afraid of death or injury. It is not the strength of his heart, but the evil in his heart for which we condemn him, and for which we hunt him. |
