Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's absolutely logical. All bombings seek to kill people or disable targets, which necessarily involves killing people. Accordingly, all bombings have a homicidal intent or at least a high likelihood of causing homicide via collateral damage. As a practical matter of language and logic, bombings are homicidal. Were this a declaratory judgment action where I was asked to prove that in a court, I wouldn't have much problem convincing a jury "bombing" and "homicide" are synonymous in our common usage of the terms. Almost full synonyms.
I didn't say the Big Three aren't biased in their reporting. Keith Olbermann plays to an ignorant and self-righteous wing of blue staters. Fox, however, has selected as its market niche an awful lot of red state morons. That's just a fact.
|
Bombing is not necessarily synonymous with homicide. Bombing a building after it's cleared of people is a bombing but not a homicide (think IRA here). Yes, the bloke assigned to make sure the building is empty might have missed the drunk in the basement passed out on floor, but that's a POSSIBILITY not a given. I can bomb something easily without killing anyone. If I were the judge and you requested the court take judicial notice that bombing means homicide, I'd say no. You wouldn't appeal that would you?
