Chilek9

No, intent is what they are focusing on because people were forgetting that the intent of this person was to kill as many other people as possible without regard to what happened to themselves. Someone who jumps off a high cliff and hurts no one else is suicidal. Someone who walks into a mall to set off a bomb that is, COINCIDENTALLY, attached to them is HOMICIDAL, he just doesn't care what happens to himself in the mix.

Toaster126

Quoted for truth. This is why intelligent discussion about topics like this is so hard for some people.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

Locobot

homicide bomber

docbungle

I find it unbelievable that people are arguing over this. I agree with Ustwo that the most descriptive label would be terrorist. Who cares what type of terrorist they are, and what difference does it make that not everyone in the nation uses the same verbiage?

If you feel more "comfortable" referring to these whackjobs as suicide bombers, then please continue to do so. But it doesn't really mean anything. You can call them "potato-eating-mass-murderers" if you like, and that still won't change anything.

This thread proves that the Left and Right will argue over anything at all, no matter how mundane.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Mojo_PeiPei

Loco, who is that "homocide" bomber?

heh heh, homocide.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

I know this will ire the Right but.....

Suicide bombers are ones with the balls to stand up and make their statement killing themselves in the process.....

Homocide bombers are the ones who go to abortion clinics and kill innocent people while miles away saying they made a political statement.

Both are seriously wrong, but both believe they are doing "God's work" (in most cases)..... at least with the suicide bomber they died as horribly as their victims.... the homocide bomber gets all the press he wanted and has a great chance of not getting caught.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

I do believe you are mistaken, as most christians are cowards and only shoot people, we don't believe in suicide, God told us it was immoral and we won't go to paradise.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

touche, mon ami.

But there is truth in my post.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

Self admittedly, Pan I didn't take so much of a position against your position. Just rather I am immature, and you guys keep spelling it "HOMOcide" not the correct "homIcide". Unless you are just being hardcore grammar/language nazi and rocking the latin base word.

I meant what I said about us Christians, we are crazy, but not blow yourself up crazy.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

No offense was taken, I found it funny and very true also.

You're right about the spelling.... common mistake.

Better watch throwing the word Nazi around some of us on the Left see that and have to bring Bush's name into the fold right away..... even if the topic has nothing to do with him......

Oooops already did it. Maybe noone will notice.....

Come on now it was a joke.... sheesh lighten up.....

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

jbw97361

suicide... homicide... what matters to me is the INTENTION of these bombers? If they merely had suicide on their mind, then why seek out crowded weddings and marketplaces for their suicide? I'm sure the middle of the barren desert would be equally effective for blowing up one's self.

Why do they choose crowded places?

Homicide. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible.

But personally I say call them all terrorists or bombers. Homicide bombers is about as redundant as "personal PIN number*".



*yes I have seen that before

__________________
JBW

Charlatan

Ultimately the fact that we are having *this* discussion means that we are distracted from the real issues. Kind of a win-win situation as far as the Administration is concerned, no?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Shhhhh you are being far too reasonable and observant, no Skittles for you.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ScottKuma

I prefer the equally-objectionable "murder-suicide bomber".

I find it accurately describes both sides of the equation.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

Locobot

It's linked.

Thanks for the spelling pointers, I did get tripped up on the root words.

dksuddeth

therein lies the error of the label. You say that a suicide bomber has balls to kill themselves while they kill many innocents, all in making a statement. I think thats a load of bullshit. What about the individual who opens fire in a coffeeshop, killing 12 people, then takes his own life afterwards. Does that afford him some sort of honor? Does the palestinian who blows himself up on a bus killing 15 people, including young children, get some sort of award?

It's not only ludicrous, but downright despicable, to even consider viewing these individuals as 'ballsy' or pursuing gods work. would god/jesus/allah blow himself up to kill as many as he could?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Therein lies the whole problem with this issue...

One side would equate a suicide bomber with your average person who goes "postal". They are simply murderers who just happen to take their own lives.

The other side recognizes the political act inherenet in the suicide bomber's actions.

This doesn't mean they agree with the suicide bomber, simply they they are more willing to recognize that things are not always as black and white as they seem (or as the Administration would like them to be).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

tell me, between a person who blows himself up in the middle of 20 abortion protesters and a person who blows up an abortion clinic with 20 women inside, whats the difference? what one thing do they have in common?

its real simple. they killed 20 people who had no power to stop the political idea in the first place. there is no difference.

there is also no difference between someone who blows himself up with his victims and someone who does it from a hiding place to later slink away.

if someone wants to show real balls and courage, turn your murdering ass in to the authorities after you've commited the crime. then i might consider your heinous act in the light that you want. doubtful, but its a better chance than you would get with the other two ways.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

There is one difference between the two abortion clinic bombers... one commits suicide and the other does not.

Both are terrorists.

For me, it is not a matter of "having balls"... both bombers are cowardly and short sighted.

As I've said before, I am reacting to the Administration and it's supporters attempting to control the debate by sanitizing the language we use to describe the events that are taking place.

collateral damage.
regime change
smart bomb
friendly fire

The list can and does go on and on... why sanitize it? Because it is easier to hate someone who is just a homicide bomber. This person is a murderer. We shouldn't wonder what his motivation was for taking this extreme action. We shouldn't equate his actions with something we might be doing.

As I said in my very first post on this thread... becareful who you start labelling "murderer" as it could be flung right back in your face. How far away are American troops from being murderers?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

rsl12

Why do people choose to use one word over another? Sometimes, the decision may simply be a matter of shading (e.g., 'house' or 'home'?). But often, the clearer, more economical term is preferred. This is particularly true for journalists, where clarity, accuarcy, and conciseness are paramount. As the decision to use the term 'homocide bomber' over 'suicide bomber' is a decision that weighs more heavily on journalists than on others, I think these are the key considerations. (I will admit, however, that the decision of word choice also weighs heavily on politicians. For politicians, the favored method of communication is neither clear nor accurate, though it is often concise. I will ignore politicians for now.)

I would argue that, though the terms 'homocide bomber' and 'suicide bomber' are both equally economical, 'suicide bomber' is clearer and more accurate. Don't agree? Try this thought experiment: what's the first thing you think of when you hear the term 'suicide pilot'?




*ding* time's up. I suspect that the image in your mind is that of a kamakaze pilot--someone who purposely drives a plane into a target in the hopes of causing destruction. Okay, now what's the image that comes to mind when you hear the term 'homocide pilot'?




*ding* For me, I get some maniac in plane gunning down people. It's not at all the image of a kamakaze pilot. I have a similar reaction when I hear the term 'homocide bomber'--someone who secretly plants a bomb under a building or crowded area, and then leaves. The term does not paint a gut-level picture of what it's supposed to define.

Now technically, one can argue that both terms are incomplete: 'suicide bomber' does not include the notion that others are killed in the process, while 'homocide bomber' does not include the notion that the bomber was also killed in the process. However, from a practical point of view, 'suicide bomber' does very much imply an attempt to cause destruction beyond the bomber's own body. Have you ever in your life heard of anyone purposely blowing themselves up in an open, empty field? If someone wants to commit suicide solely for the purposes of ending their own life, they may do so privately in their houses, or dramatically off a bridge, but I have yet to hear of someone going through the trouble of rigging a bomb together just to kill themselves! The term 'suicide bomber' strongly implies intended harm to others, because all suicide bombers we know about seem to have this intention. In contrast, the term 'homocide bomber' does *not* imply intended harm to the bomber, as there are plenty of cases of bombers being quite far away from their bombs when they explode.

DKSuddeth noted that the bomber who kills himself is just as despicable as the bomber who avoids killing himself. Certainly he is entitled to his opinion. However, the journalists on the job are not so entitled--they have a professional obligation to report the facts as accurately, as concisely, and as unbiased as possible. Use of the term 'suicide bomber' allows them to do so--use of the term 'homocide bomber' does not.

Finally, let's consider the term 'terrorist'. The term 'terrorist' is so vague in the context of a suicide bomber as to be useless. Yes, it could be used--you could say 'the terrorist blew himself up at 5th and main and killed 5 others", but it is more economical to just say 'the suicide bomber killed 5 others at 5th and main." Why say 'the man who made a living putting up houses bought nails' when you could say 'the carpenter bought nails'?

Also, labeling someone as a 'terrorist' implies something about the person's motives, and if we're talking about journalism, it colors the story. It's hard for a journalist to plumb the depth of a person's motive if their brain is scattered across the pavement, and they have no business trying to guess at motives without information backing up their guess. The term 'suicide bomber', in contrast, implies more objective facts.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

roachboy

just to say the wholly obvious:

the bush administration obviously sees its problems over their fine and wildly successful colonial outing in iraq as a function of image problems--disadvantageous terms of debate, you see (nothing wrong with the policy, the claims about iraq the torture, etc etc etc)--os it is that suicide bomber is bad bad bad because it focuses on the bomber and assigns a motive rooted in sacrifice--homicide bomber---which is not pleasing aesthetically and so can be seen as another botched semantic design by the right----this term would switch the associations

if you figure that folk organize most of their idea of what is happening in iraq based on passing encounters with information, quick reads, tv over other acts of comsumption, etc, so the terminology plays a bigger role in shaping whole perceptions of and positions on the war than it would if folk read more carefully or watched more closely or something

this seems to me like a set of assumptions that would make the term switch a reasonable tactic---and it is not unreasonable from another angle--if folk really paid attention to information, really read or watched carefully and thought about what they took in, george w bush would never have been selected in the first place---so it makes sense that this administration would work with patronizing assumptions about "the amurican people" and their relation to information...

it's another example of what the redon group does--like the thread about the word insurgent---the administration hired these folk on to address their "image crisis" and this is an element of the response. it will be vaguely interesting to see if this aesthetically unpleasant foxterm leaks beyond the confines of conservativeland.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

rsl12

--deleted--

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Charlatan

I fear it is just a matter of time.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

And why do you fear it?

You can learn a lot about someone with the language they use, you don't fear something unless you expect a negative consequence.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

EDIT: It's just a matter of time.

I "fear" it because I do not wish to see this change occur. While what you say is true, you can tell a lot about someone by the language they use, the attention span of the average person is very short. One simple switch of terms can render something horrific suddenly palatable.

It is ironic that a thread about the politics of semantics should get sidetracked by semantics. Perhaps "concerned" would have been a better choice of words to describe my feelings on the matter than "fear".

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Damn you DK you are making too many good points today and forcing me to agree.

I didn't mean balls in an honorable way, well I guess in that at least the suicide bomber is making his statement and taking his life in the process, where as the abortion clinic bomber plants and runs and kills innocents while he lives. Both believe they are doing God's work..... just one shows..... I guess for lack of my knowledge to phrase it better..... more dedication to their cause and faith in their God than the other.

Going nuts and "postal", is just that, there's usually no true statement behind it, at least not one that makes sense to anyone including them.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

Wouldn't the opportunity to kill and bomb again for your cause show more dedication than just a one-shot chance?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

Those would be the terrorist master minds getting these duffuses to blow themselves up.

Human life isn't high on their list of things worth preserving.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

alpha phi

That would be the difference between common sense and faith

__________________

pan6467

Guess it all depends on what your beliefs are...... good point.

Both scenarios are just nuts and one reason I can't get into organized religion of any kind. I don't see the God I choose to believe in telling me to kill people.... streaking through the Atl. airport I can see..... course when I heard that voice telling me to do it, I don't think it was God.... I think it was the friends I was with daring me to and the alcohol.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

No I think common sense is very high on the list of those setting up the bombings.

Get some skull full of mush to be a suicide bomber, it gives you very good targeting with a 'smart' system, plus it destroys itself making it hard to trace back to the real terrorists who are organizing and paying for it. Plus you get extra press due to the 'sacrifice' they made and sympathy.

As long as you have a big supply of potential bombers, taught to be martyrs from the cradle, it makes a lot of common sense.

When you just plant a bomb at lot can go wrong.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

alpha phi

I suppose that's why the organizers are called masterminds
what I'm saying is that the actual bomber
the one who dies, is going on faith of an afterlife reward
(and possibly a financial reward for their family still living)

__________________

MoonDog

This will all blow over, just like the "Freedom fries" episode. No one really stuck with that one. It may technically be smantics, but in reality it is all theatrics. "Homicide bomber", your time too shall pass...

alpha phi

Homicide bomber could be described as a blanket term for any
bomber that causes destruction.
Amazing what a descriptive verb can do for a noun
such as:
Suicide Bomber


or

Stealth Bomber


Clinic Bomber


Una Bomber


And semi lethal
The Brown Bomber


Not a homicide bomber

Leather Bomber

__________________

Lebell

LOL, Apha Phi!

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ubertuber

The catch is you only get to make your point once.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Redlemon

I like the way you think. I decided to look at the antonym of each term.

A "non-suicide" bomber would be one who sets off a bomb, and is still alive.
A "non-homicide" bomber is one who sets bombs off in empty fields.

Based on the antonyms, "suicide bomber" is more descriptive and useful.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Vaultboy

Kind of like what ETA have become lately?

__________________
"Failing tastes of bile and dog vomit. Pity any man that gets used to that taste."

aceventura3

Winners define history and the terms used to describe historical events. This has been true since the dawn of mankind. I think it is wrong to suggest this administration is doing something diabolical in trying to describe war.

If the mudering, slimebag, cowardous, terrorists win; they truely will go down in history as heroic freedom fighters. In the meantime they are the most vile, evil, scum of the earth.