Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suicide bombings are different because the attacker is willing to die to kill others. This means that they are particularly difficult to deter, and that they resonate more as a PR matter.
|
To me, this is where the distinction lies (not that bombing equals homicide). I agree that saying "suicide bombing" resonates as a PR matter, but I'm not sure whose PR agenda is fulfilled. For me, hearing "suicide bomber" drives home the fact that *certain* groups of people (usually Muslims) are pathetic enough to strap bombs on kids in order to blow up as many adults and kids as possible. It also makes me think about who is funding these escapades (or paying for the suicide bomber's funeral). Hearing "suicide bomber" doesn't evoke any sympathy. I don't mind the term at all.
But if Fox news wants to use homicide bomber to focus the crime on the homicide victims, why should I care? When you hear about Israeli parents sifting through a streetful of body parts trying to put back together their toddlers, why does anyone care that Fox is using "homicide bomber"? Because folks might (gasp) side with the victims? I don't see anything unfair about the term and don't see any unfair stuff that's being "whipped up" among supposedly stupid red-staters. (Yes, this is a reply to Sebby's post too. I'm lazy like that).
