A friend of mine has always said to me, since way back when, that suicide bombers are far more courageous going to their certain deaths than any military man period. We argue this one over and over, and I’ll concede that modern warfare with its tendency for killing from a distance rather than up close and bloody, perhaps detaches the killer from the killed and requires less guts due to this detachment from the consequences. But, I argue, there are plenty of guys who fight and take risks with their person directly, etc etc. My friend maintains that most military personnel might have a death wish or not expect to live, but each of their encounters is usually non-fatal, whereas the suicide bomber usually does not return to fight another day. He then points out that it is traditional for the oppressed and occupied to fight back with asymmetrical and often suicidal methods, especially when faced with a higher tech invading and occupying army. I counter that these people are brainwashed into needlessly sacrificing their lives by puppet masters. He then raises his eyebrows and asks me how my description does not fit the military forces they oppose. We get nowhere, and so it goes on.

Now, presumably Williams is saying that these guys on both sides have in common the fact that they are willing to lay down their lives for what they believe in. That would not seem to be poorly worded. So presumably the poorly-worded part is the apparent foreknowledge of the 9/11 first responders that they were not going to come out? Or that comparing people dying to save others with suicide bombers dying to kill others was the bit he might rephrase had he listened to himself? I wasn’t clear.