WTF is a 'homicide bomber'?
 

I try not to play the semantics games but this term really bugs me. I understand that the right started using this instead of suicide bomber because they want to take the emphasis off of martyrdom but this term is just plain retarded. Isn't homocide the desired result for virtually all bombers, regardless of what happens to the bomber? Therefore, unless the person is a 'dismemberment bomber' or a 'serious injury bomber' or maybe just a 'fleshwound bomber' they are ALL 'homocide bombers'. Therefore, if we want to be specific, any bomber that intends to blow themself up in order to ensure that someone doesn't notice the random package on the ground is by definition a 'suicide bomber'.

Yeah, I agree. However, I think that homicide bomber is probably more semantically viable, as the intent is to commit homicide rather than suicide. If you want to off yourself, there are easier ways to do it then blowing yourself to bits. *shrug* If we could have a blanket turnover in use of terms, I'd go for homicide bomber anyhow, but since it's not bound to change so drastically, I agree that we should stick to what we've used.

Ah, semantics, the last resort for Spin Doctors!

We could move this into Tilted Nonsense and ask people to post their new "Bomber" tag;

I prefer : Very-motivated-but-short-term-thinker-bomber.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life;

People know what the issue is! Calling it "Homicide Bomber" will only cloud the issue, and do no good to solve the problem.

Exactly. Unless your intention is that your bomb does not kill anyone, you are a homocide bomber. If we are so worried about the martyr issue, why not just drop the prefix and call all of them bombers?

One should be careful who they call homicide bombers. Especially when your nation drops a lot of bombs. You could find your nation getting painted with the very same brush.

Why not just call them terrorists? I know international news organizations don't want to lable people who blow up civilians on purpose terroists, but hey its just words.

What? I thought ours were "smart" friendly bombs, like the kind you would use "surgically." Sure there's been some collateral disfriendburment, but I fail to see how OUR high explosives cause actual human death.

Yes, when our bomb hits a marketplace does that make the pilot a terrorist or a homocide bomber?

Heh. Took me a minute to figure out what this thread was about. The homicide Fox-ism bugged me long ago so I added a filter to my proxy that changes it back to 'suicide'. Weird phrasing variations get through on occassion but the mosquito is mostly banished.

For me the homicide wording is more confusing than helpful. I stop and think about the politics instead of the terrible act.

i prefer the term 'murderers'. the look on their face must be hilarious when they realize that after killing numerous innocent people that they didn't arrive in paradise.

Main Entry: ho·mi·cide
Pronunciation: 'hä-m&-"sId, 'hO-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin homicidium, from homo human being + caedere to cut, kill
1 : a person who kills another
2 : the killing of one human being by another

bomber

n 1: a military aircraft that drops bombs during flight 2: a person who plants bombs 3: a large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments)

If the shoe fits wear it.

Shoe? Meet foot.

It's called a fuck-up with terrible consequences. Terrorists do it intentionally. I haven 't seen anything credible stating members of our armed services routinely seek out and kill groups of Iraqi civilians.

Wasn't "homicide bomber" intended to be specific to suicide attacks? I seem to remember it being introduced two-three years ago during Rumsfeld press conferences.

Suicide bomber is quite accurate AND it doesn't smell of the cleansers of righteousness that the right would choose to use with "homicide bomber"

Yes well the shoe also fits for every other bomber out there. How does the term 'homocide bomber' differentiate between a person attacking valid military targets, a person who plants a device in a public place and detonates from a safe distance, and a person who blows themsef up to kill others?

If it doesn't matter, then why not avoid using a loaded term and just call them all bombers?

Because they are MURDERERS if they KILL another person, therefore committing a homicide, an action which does not make them some self righteous Allah pleasing martyr.

Charlatan that is cute really, but it isn't merely a suicide when you blow yourself up in a place crowded with other people, again this is what is known as murder in the real world of morals, you know where we have black and white, not some establishment scoffing anti-bushworld hippie colored gray.

Hence the term Suicide Bomber as noted above. The term works. The only reason the current Administration feels the need to change it is because they like to cleanse the language to suit their spin on things... sadly they have been quite successful with this tactic.

This has nothing to do with "establishment scoffing anti-bushworld hippie" rather it has to do with how our perception of events is controlled and focused on one thing rather than another.

That's nice but you still haven't answered any questions. Now please explain the difference between someone who plants a device and detonates from a safe distance and somone who kills themself. By your definition, both would be homocide bombers. If there is no difference, then why not just call all of them bombers?

I am confounded by your line of reasoning Kutulu. There is no difference between blowing yourself up while murdering others, or murdering others by blowing a bomb up safely. The outcome is the same though, murder, which equates a homicide.

Is it inconvienent(sp) to call them murderers? Is it unfair? Is it incorrect? I didn't think so. What's the disconnect here?

The disconnect is that we are not calling people who safely blow up others 'homicide bombers'. The term 'homocide bomber' is almost exclusively used by the right wing policitians and media to describe what everyone else calls a 'suicide bomber'. Bomber works well enough. It's not as if people will be confused and think that the person let off a stink bomb or anything.

It works the other way too:
Is it inconvenient to call them suicide bombers? Is it unfair? Is it incorrect? I don't think so. What exactly is the disconnect there?

It is incorrect, they are not merely committing suicide, they are committing homicide. It is unfair, suicide would lend them some legitimacy and righteousness to what is a cowardly and reprehensible evil.

Why does the left want to call them suicide bombers?

Its obvious why the right wants to call them homocide bombers.

How does the "suicide" aspect lend legitimacy to anything?

It's probably something similar to the "happy holidays" versus "merry christmas" struggle.

I mostly prefer succint language, and suicide says more about what happened than homicide.

a suicide bomber would be considered a homicide bomber but it is a more descriptive class. That is homicide bombers is a superclass containing suicide bombers along with other classes of bombers. Suicide bomber is the appropriate term, there is no reason to change it.

Give me a break. As if anyone doesn't know that they are killing others also.

You already said that there is no difference between someone who kills themself and someone who detonates from a safe distance (who we just call a 'bomber') so how is the use of 'homocide bomber' not pure propaganda?

One implies it is a cirminal act, the other doesn't. The fact it gets your panties in a bunch makes me think homicide bomber is on the right track :D

Be honest, have you ever read 'suicide bomber' and wondered to yourself if they merely blew themself up at a form of protest (such as Budhist monks lighting themself on fire in protest) or if they blew up a bunch of others along with them?

The term DID work fine for DECADES. It was the Republicans that came along in the last few years and decided to change it for political purposes.

Which act is not criminal? AFAIK suicide is still illegal just about everywhere. The fact that you can't come up with anything better makes me think you are talking out your ass.

:lol:

Speaking of talking out ones ass, thats got to be the weakest argument I've heard for using the term suicide bomber.

The proper term for all these people is just simply TERRORIST.

Gents Gents Gents,

Is this REALLY worth an argument?

And is it REALLY worth getting all pissy with each other?

This coming from the one who posted such a gem as: "One implies it is a cirminal act, the other doesn't."

As if someone would be able to walk away free if the stood in a clear open area, notified people that they were about to kill themself, and their bomb malfunctioned and only blew a portion of their arm off... I'm sure we'd be like, "hey man, it's cool, here's some more c-4 so that you can get it done right. Want me to wire it for you?"

Now this is a better topic.

Yes type of statement is what makes people on the right think the left cares more about the bomber than the victims.

That's total bullshit and you know it. The use of the add-on 'suicide' tells you instantly that the bomber is dead. 'homocide' only tells you that there were victims and is redundant.

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.

Come on, don't be rediculous. Everyone knows that a suicide bomber is someone who blows themselves up to kill others. Nobody hears the phrase "suicide bomber" and equates it with someone who hanged himself.

The Unibomber was a homicide bomber.
The terrorists blowing themselves up in Iraq and Israel are suicide bombers.


In fact, can you name any sort of non-homicide bomber?
Let's face it, the word "bomber" implies "homicide." Thus "suicide bomber" implies "suicidal homicide bomber."

If its such a non-issue why would it bother anyone?

Its very much the same as the pro-life, pro-choice debate, and no one wants to be pro-abortion.

I like homocide bomber because it stresses the intent, to murder people.

I think the left likes suicide bomber because quite frankly I think the left at the very least feels sympathy for those doing this.

If this is all it takes for people on the right to question the location of my sympathies when it comes to suicide bombers then perhaps i have over estimated their intelligence.
As if a select few on the right required any kind of rational reason to manufacture disagreements with people on the left.
As if a select few on the right were consistent at all in their expressed sympathies towards casualties of war.

While I can appreciate your point of view on this ustwo I don't like the term because it is just another blatant example of this administration sanatizing the language used to describe a war.

Sanitizing so that we don't think about the reasons why people might be fighting back. You are right when you raise the "pro-abortion" issue. This is another example of trying to control the debate by controlling the language... we could also use terms like "collateral damage", "right sizing" or "friendly fire".

One person's liberating army is another invading army. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. You don't have to sympathize with any side in order to recognize that the terms used to describe certain actions and people are politically loaded and used to control the terms of the larger discourse.

In case anyone wants the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108329,00.html
In reality she was a suicide bomber responsible for homicides.

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.

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

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....orth_ny121.jpg
homicide bomber

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.

Loco, who is that "homocide" bomber?

heh heh, homocide.

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 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.

:lol: touche, mon ami.

But there is truth in my post.

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.

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

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...... :lol:

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

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

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

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?

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

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

I find it accurately describes both sides of the equation.

It's linked.

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

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?

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

--deleted--

I fear it is just a matter of time.

And why do you fear it? :rolleyes:

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

Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name.

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".

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

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.

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

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.

That would be the difference between common sense and faith

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.

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.

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)

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...

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
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos...ide_bomb_2.jpg

or

Stealth Bomber
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...mages/b2_6.jpg

Clinic Bomber
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...ed2p.widec.jpg

Una Bomber
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ber-sketch.png

And semi lethal
The Brown Bomber
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/l...ages/kaput.gif

Not a homicide bomber

Leather Bomber
http://www.ljackets.com/images/7633RWPF.jpg

LOL, Apha Phi!

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

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.

Kind of like what ETA have become lately?

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.

the administration is not trying to describe a war: they are trying to market one.

The first casualty when war comes is truth
--Senator Hiram Warren Johnson 1918

As roachboy points out the Administration is hardly in the position of "winner" and even if they were there is no reason to simply roll over and except their version of events.

Furthermore, I was far from suggesting it was "diabolical"... the administration's tactics are no different from any other PR campaign... and like those campaigns they only become distasteful when one realizes what is being attempted (Hill and Knowlton's "The Iraqis are killing babies" from Gulf War #1 comes to mind).

I am not sure but I think we agree. "PR" is simply communicating one's point of view. If I think I am good and someone else is evil, and I communicate that, perhaps you call it "PR". I call it saying what I believe. Historically the winning side controls "PR". I don't see it as wrong or right, it is what it is.

I will find facts and information to support my point of view, so does everyone else, including the Bush administration as well as those who are agaist his administration. Reality is in shades of gray, but we want to believe we are right and that those who disagree are wrong.

Interesting quote, but I think the history of warfare suggests that disregard for human life is the first casuality of war. When a group or nation develops a disregard for human life they then tend to do whatever is in their power to promote their point of view, perhaps the second casualty of war is truth. However, for the opposing side, defending life is honorable-even when it means sacrificing life. Kind of a paradox.

Can you think of any war that did not require some form of marketing to rally the people. We even had to "market" our involvment in WWII. Yes, against Hitler, where many did not want to get involved, and against Japan even after they attacked Peril Harbor we even had government sponsored marketing.

What is this administration doing that has not been done and accepted before?

Isn't this an entirely different type of bomber :D