Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
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?
|
Ahhh, of course. I've neglected to make the hypothetical airtight, so you've taken exactly the argument I assumed you would.
Look, in this simple context, bombing is synonymous with homicide. I was talking about the public's general, common understanding of the word "bombing," which 999 out of 1000 people would say includes a homicidal intent.
You have selected an exception which is far divorced from this context, and is probably known to what? The .03% of society with an in depth knowledge of the conflict in Northern Ireland?
Bombings as known and understood in common parlance are homicidal or likely to cause homicide. Hence, at the bare minimum, "homicide bombing" ads a sensless and unecessary description.
Think of the expression "basket case." That's along the lines of what "homicide bombing" sounds like.
