Aristotle defines courage as the middle ground between cowardice and recklessness. (Aristotle, 49) On the one hand there is the ultimately fearful man who, for example, allows himself to be taken advantage of or flees the country before being drafted into a war. On the other hand there is the reckless man: overwhelmed and fueled by his wild passion, he says, he seeks murderous revenge against those who have done him harm. In the middle is the courageous man who reacts appropriately in the face of fear, and does so for noble reasons. However, what determines an act of courage is not always so clear and simple. On September 11, 2001, nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. These men certainly faced and subsequently overcame fear to accomplish this harmful task, yet what they displayed was not truly courage. Since these men acted out of revenge and preyed on innocents, it is unlikely that they could have been considered courageous by Aristotle's standards. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe September 11 attacks were directly fueled by the desire for revenge against the United States due to political and religious conflict. The men involved in this attack were part of an Islamic terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden. Following U.S. support for the expansion of Israel's Holy Land, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or order, to all Muslims urging them to seize every available opportunity to punish the Americans. (Bin Laden) Given that the 9/11 attackers were operating under Bin Laden's command, it can be assumed that the attacks on the World Trade Center were not a reasonable, logical, or noble response to a diplomatic dispute, but rather a fueled reaction from hatred. attempt at revenge against the Americans. Aristotle states that a seemingly courageous act committed out of passion is simply disguised as courage: “Even passion is sometimes counted as courage; those who act out of passion, like wild beasts who lash out against those who have wounded them..." (Aristotle, 53). But, alternatively, it could be argued that these Al-Qaeda members believed that the United States posed a real threat to the “holy land” of their religion and therefore viewed an attack on American soil as a necessary defensive precaution. This argument would make their actions a reasonable and noble defense of their way of life rather than a brutal, rash and passionate decision. Aristotle specifies that a confident man in the face of battle qualifies as courageous (Aristotle, 50). Consequently, if the hijackers had confidently engaged in an all-arms battle against a U.S. militant force, their acts would likely be considered courageous. However, the hijackers did not attack a willing group of equally armed men, but rather an unsuspecting crowd of innocent civilian workers. They acted with the knowledge that their opponent not only had no advantage or knowledge of the attack, but also no possibility of escape or defense. Because these men had such an advantage, their apparent courage in the face of fear is disqualified. The nature of this offense by Aristotle's standards would probably disqualify them from being considered courageous. However, it can be admitted that in the eyes of these terrorists, the Americans murdered on September 11 were not "innocents", but rather perpetrators of an evil that violated their religious freedom. It is possible that i.