Mr. Dalrymple,

How would you have characterized Bhutto's murderers if they chose NOT to kill her, Right at the moment that they intended to, for Whatever reason?

This is one of the rare times I disagree with Mr Dalrymple.  Courage is not necessarily an easy thing to pin down.  I refer our readers to Plato's "Larches".

At best, I call the assassins foolish.  How can we compare their foolishness with true courage like Leonidas'?  Death came in both cases; it was the outcome that determined the courage.  To stay in Greek a bit longer, Solon told Croseus that he couldn't tell if Croseus was the happiest of men, because he hadn't died yet and stood the judgement of history.

Can the misguided courage of foolishness be virtuous? I don't know, but I doubt it.

On the other hand, to call the assassins anything but cowardly would have been to send a very wrong signal to their friends and supporters.  Even calling them "assassins" gives them a cachet they don't deserve.   (It may be true that the difference between "assassin" and :murderer" is determined not by the killer, but by the victim.)

I think Terry Fitzgerald, using his marketplace of ideas example, comes closest to resolving the cowardice/courage question.

Still, if we accept the dictionary definition of virtue as 'conformity to a standard of right' nothing is resolved unless all parties accept the SAME standard. This is not the case between ourselves and the jihadists. An act, which from our viewpoint is cowardly or despicable, is from the jihadist's viewpoint faithful and honorable.

And certainly, if the murderer felt not fear but ecstasy at the imminence of his expected entry to paradise, then the question of cowardice/courage does not apply.

In either situation, there is no agreement on the specifics defining the standard of what is right, and therefore no agreement on what is virtuous. Thus, as when a proton meets an anti-proton, expect a destructive explosion.

Consider defining a virtue as any behavior that is beneficial to all involved, or more modestly, any behavior that has no net harmful effect on anyone. Next, get agreement from the jihadist and enforce that standard.

"East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

I think the real issue is... does courage or cowardice really even factor into the equation?

I believe (but might be mistaken) that it was Aristotle who took the trouble to examine the psychology of the war-mad Celtic tribes who bordered northern Greece and Macedon, and periodically came south in warbands bent on pillage and plunder.

These tribesmen, unlike the rather more advanced Hellenes, chose to fight naked, flinging themselves against the rows of pointed Hoplite spears with a fanatical fearlessness.

Alexander the Great once held an audience with two of their Chieftains and, in his customary style, asked them what they were afraid of. It was understood, at that time, that all good supplicants should reply "You, Alexander."

Instead, after mulling the question over for a while, the two chieftains came back and replied that they feared only that the sky above them might fall, or that the land beneath them might yawn open and swallow them. What Alexander made of this is not known.

But evidently his teacher was made curious by the exchange, so he studied their beliefs. Aristotle discovered that their faith in immediate reincarnation was so strong that for the Celts, there was no break in between life and death. There was, in fact, no death at all. If they died in battle, they were immediately reborn.

He concluded (rightly, I suspect) that this did not mean the Celtic warriors themselves were braver than Greek soldiers, who, not big on religion, rather preferred to remain above ground as long as possible. Rather, the Celts, having grown up totally convinced of the truth of reincarnation, simply placed no real value in their current existence.

Again and again, the Jihadists have said: "People in the West love life. We will defeat them because we love death."

Like the ancient Celts, this warped perspective on reality doesn't make them any more brave than you or I. It merely indicates that they value their current existence less than we do. In the case of the Jihadists, they have even more incentive than the ancient Celts to die - I can think of no ancient Celtic tale that dwells upon the bevy of virgin females awaiting warriors in the afterlife.

This then is not bravery. It is institutionalised insanity. It is the wanton act of throwing your life away in the misguided belief that you will go on to something even better.

"cowardice in the case of the assassins of Bhutto, though the evidence for this is completely lacking"

The evidence is completely lacking you say Mr. Daniels .....Really? Now I know why many people distrust so called leftist "intellectuals", as they are often blind to reality even when it stares them in the face.

Let me ask you, what would take more courage, patiently standing by and watching a political movement you despise and wish to silence flourish, and even transform the country? Or is it more brave to kill the leader and send yourself to hell where 7 virgins are promised? If doing nothing takes more courage than doing something, then not being able to do nothing is a form of cowardice. Peace

Before I can respond intelligently I need to know if English is Mr. Dalrymple's second language.

Didn't Bill Maher's TV program "Politically Incorrect" get cancelled because he said the very same thing about the 9/11 hijackers? ;)