Aristotle defines courage as the golden mean between cowardice and recklessness. (Aristotle, 49) On one side is the ultimately fearful man who, for example, allows others to take advantage of him or flees the country under pain of being drafted into a war. On the other hand, there is the reckless man: subdued and fueled by his wild passion, he seeks, he says, murderous revenge against those who have wronged him. In between is the courageous man who responds appropriately in the face of fear, and for noble reasons. However, what determines an act of courage is not always that simple. On September 11, 2001, nineteen Islamist terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners and flew them toward the World Trade Center in New York, New York. These men surely faced and then overcame fear to accomplish this wicked task, but what they demonstrated was not exactly courage. Because these men acted out of vengeance and preyed on innocent people, it is unlikely that they could be considered courageous by Aristotle's standards. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe September 11 attacks were directly fueled by a desire for revenge against the United States due to political conflict and religious. The men involved in the attack were part of an Islamic terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. Following U.S. support for the expansion of the Israeli Holy Land, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or order, to all Muslims, urging them to take every available opportunity to punish the Americans. (Bin Laden) As the 9/11 attackers operated under the command of Bin Laden, 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 by hatred. trying to take revenge on the Americans. Aristotle states that an apparently courageous act committed out of passion is only a mask of courage: “Passion also is sometimes considered courage; those who act out of passion, like wild beasts rushing upon those who have injured them..." (Aristotle, 53). But it could also be argued that these al-Qaeda members believed that the United States posed a real threat to their religion's "Holy Land" 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, reckless and passionate decision. Aristotle makes it clear that a man confident in the face of battle is considered courageous (Aristotle, 50). Therefore, if the hijackers had confidently engaged in an evenly matched battle against an American militant force, their actions would likely have been considered courageous. However, the hijackers did not attack a group of equally armed volunteer men, but rather an unsuspecting crowd of innocent civilian workers. They acted knowing 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 bravery in the face of fear is disqualified. The nature of this offense by Aristotle's standards would likely prevent them from being considered courageous. However, we could admit that in the eyes of these terrorists, the Americans they assassinated on September 11 were not "innocents", but the authors of an evil that harmed their.