Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I agree that "homicide bomber" is stupid, but I think an additional element in the argument is that, by calling it a "suicide" but not "homicide" bombing, it demphasizes the significance of the innocent life taken in favor of the bomber's. Sort of a half-baked "victims rights" thing - if anyone's "victim" status is to be linguistically marginalized, it should by rights be the bomber's, not the actual victims'.
That said - yeah, lame. You'd think that anti-bombers would want to emphasize the suicide element, since most religions hold that suicide is a mortal sin (or whatever the applicable description is that means "you are absolutely barred from heaven for it").
eta: though I would go so far as to refer to the suicide bomber as a "casualty" of the explosion, not a "victim."
|
I did this one to death 6 months ago, and lack the energy to do it again- but blackletter:
What was the bombers main goal- kill himself or take out the mom and her kids? I don't think suicide describes the guy's main motivation. The word describes the bomber not the act.
I had a good friend who committed suicide- he did it in his dad's garage. Only he died.
As to the other points-
emphasizing it's "suicide" doesn't reenforce it's wrong from a religious standpoint, when the bomber thinks God has a place for him in paradise.
Of course the main problem is how much the guy's willingness to blow himself up makes it tough to stop him. But people realize that with either name.
Both terms are poor choices, but homocide isn't worse.
