Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
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).
|
Fox is trying to emphasize the deaths of the victims, rather than that of the bomber, and while I understand the reason for it, as a policy matter the death of the bomber matters quite a bit. Why should you care? Because it's harder to stop people who are planning to kill themselves. Because it suggests a level of desperation in our enemy that has implications for how we fight the war. Not necessarily because you should sympathize with the plight of the bomber, though I think that's what Fox and Hank are worried about.
eta: I'm not bothered that Fox would call them "homicide bombers," but I am bothered that people who are so profoundly unserious about these things would have any influence on the intellectual or political climate in this country.
Threaded Mode