Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Yes type of statement is what makes people on the right think the left cares more about the bomber than the victims.
|
Being somewhat language anal, at least to my capacity, it bothers me more that people try to redefine common language. It draws attention away from the act. Anyway, we're mixing details with the politics. Both two-word combinations are less than specific. We're still missing:
Delivery (Car, pedestrian...), fatalities, injuries, target type & setting.
Then any political coloring.
As I recall, the White House originally stated they were using "homicide" in lieu of "suicide" in an attempt to de-martyr the perpetrators among Muslims. So it's semantics confused by motive. Some people want to punish or add meaning, some don't, some want to be accurate, others not. Regardless, every story has more than its tag line which is quickly forgotten once the details are known. IMO calling the assholes that took out the crowded wedding party "homicide bombers" lightens their crime by nature of the phrase's overuse on all target types. Edit: Being very clear here, I'm not saying attacks on military or police are justified in any way, just that many Iraqis may be torn on the specifics. Overusing loaded words dulls the sword in the sand.
Going back to the White House's stated goal, I'm curious if either version has significance in middle-eastern translations.