Quick point: Terrorists are "Cowards"?

Kathleen Parker writes today in "Capitalism, terrorism strange bedfellows" that terrorists are cowards. It's a side comment, not directly related to her column's primary (and correct) observation that increased terrorism funds increased capital investment which can have the effect of creating an industry addicted to lots of terrorism. It's an important point to make, because one would hope that both government and industry have the self restraint at some point to turn the funding faucet down or off if (when!) security improves and things stabilize. But the perjorative of "coward," while a favorite among those who may want to do what little they can to taunt terrorists from a safe distance, can have the effect of helping our people understand the nature of the threat we face.
Dictionary.com defines coward "as a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person." Now, one could make the case that a terrorist is exercise some forms of cowardice because he's choosing instant death instead of continuing down the road of a Gaza refugee camp, trying to eek out an existence for himself and a future family.

But that is a rather academic definition. The fact is that his worldview, Islamofascism, calls him to zealously throw himself at the enemy (me, and you) and take upon himself some pretty impressive risks, which include dying pretty violently or living to tell about it at the mercy of somebody who doesn't give a rip about all the fuzzy views that the New York Times deems fit to print. This guy knows he's going to die or get tortured for understanding who was helping him to die.

To dismiss terrorists as coward seems to help perpetuate confusion about the nature of our enemy. To regard them as "brave, innovative, smart" and other accolades is not to admire their moral compass or their telos. It's just part of soberly assessing the enemy.