Sure you do. Sacrificing your life takes courage.
I disagree, BT, and by an odd coincidence, that very type of claim is the reason that I am here (in the saloon I mean) today.
I joined PIC in the aftermath of 9-11 but not as a direct result of the attack itself. It was, rather, the infamous incident of Bill Maher comparing the "courage" of the terrorists to the implicitly cowardly way US forces could bomb places from above or send missiles after someone, etc. This was on his abomination of a TV show "Politically Incorrect." As I sought out more information on the quote, I ran across the PIC and the rest is history.
But there is no courage involved in committing suicide. None. It takes no bravery to kill yourself. Since you PLAN to die and WANT to die, you have nothing to lose (and 72 virgins to gain, if you believe in that sort of thing). Contrast that with entering into a situation where you want to live, you hope to come out at the other end alive, and you have lots to live for. In spite of that, however, you enter into harm's way for a cause (whether that cause be defending your nation, protecting your property or loved ones, or conquering the world for your religion - even imposing an evil dictator's will). When you want to live, and you are willing to risk or even knowingly give your life to rescue or protect someone, that is courageous. Simply strapping on a bomb and walking into a disco is nothing more than cowardice. You haven't got the courage to risk failure AND your life. Instead, you go for the sure thing and forfeit your life before you ever go into action.
There are lots of courageous Talibani and Al Quaeda fighters. They go out and fight against real live flesh-and-blood enemies. They do hide and run and all those other things that any rational human being would do when under fire from a superior enemy, but at least they come out to put their lives on the line for their (dubious) cause. American soldiers (and any other rational people) do the same thing. Suicide bombers are not courageous. They are cowards who haven't got the courage to fight an armed enemy.
I think that people who suggest there is courage in suicide bombers confuse courage with defeatist resignation. There are courageous suicide missions. These are the missions where, for example, someone volunteers to die to protect someone else. Think of the typical Hollywood scene, like the pilot who flies into the path of the oncoming missile to save the President's plane, or the character in "A Tale of Two Cities" who dies in place of another ("tis a far, far better thing . . ."). What about real-life actions like the person who dives into the path of the oncoming car to push a child out of the way, or someone who drowns trying to rescue someone else? Or even the soldier who chooses to jump on a grenade or take out a machine gun nest to save his buddies. These are things that MUST be done. I might even give the Kamikaze a pass, since the ships they were attacking were actually a direct threat to the homeland. The Japanese were fighting a conventional war and the actions of their military men were (relative to the realities of war) honorable ones. Flying a plane into a well-armed warship filled with armed military men who could defend themselves and were a genuine direct threat was a desperate but arguably necessary act. One could almost even stretch this to include the bombers of the USS Cole (damn their souls) though the Cole was not engaged in warfare. But flying civilian aircraft filled with unarmed civilians into buildings filled with civilians was just an act of petty vandalism horribly magnified. It required no courage - just fanatical hatred.
Risk is a necessary component of courage. When one is already resigned to die in a senseless act, nothing is at risk.
