Guys, this is someone's first comment. Be nice.

Thanks, Jack. I hadn't checked the context, either - it makes more sense as a reply here.

That said: "coward" has both a denotation and a connotation, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to promote usage which undermines the former. Yes, people do ... but we can do better than that. Particularly given that the denotationally-accurate term "fanatic" connotes disapproval as well.

Edit: On reflection, upvoted. Yes, the words have meanings - but when they are used as political weapons, as they are in this context, these meanings are frequently ignored in favor of their political purpose.

I respond to my original comment, at the risk of appearing to talk to myself. In looking at replies to my comment, some portion of a conversation appears to be missing - talking to myself seemed the best way to jump back in.

I stand corrected. These words do, of course, have meaning. However, I believe they are more meaningful in terms of describing the speaker. RU uses the term "coward" to describe the 9/11 attackers - this tells me a great deal about RU, but very little about the attackers.

This is now my second comment - don't hold back.

Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.

"Cowardly" is a term of vice, and it does therefore imply some negative normative value. To use it otherwise is using the word wrong.

They suppressed there fears, that's what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.

"Bravery" is said in many ways, but I believe here it was being used as a synonym for "courage". "Courage" is a term of virtue, and it does therefore imply some positive normative value. To use it otherwise is to use the word wrong.