Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Diane_Keaton]

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?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I remember wonk, i think, had a strong reaction to homicide bombers, but i forget why.

I think that Diane's point was the best one -- the reason they are called "suicide bombers" is because now the bombers themselves are the weapon. This distinguishes them from the PLO and IRA and ETA (etc.) terrorist bombers of the past, who blew other people up without (intentionally, anyway) blowing themselves up in the process.

The fact that they are willing to die to deliver the bomb to the target makes them that much more difficult to prevent and detect.

And, if Fox was around in 1945, would we have this debate about the term "kamikaze pilot"? [Bill O'Reilly]There's nothing "divine" about these murderous Nip bastards.[/Bill O'Reilly]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Calling them "homicide bombings" is an attempt to will the problem away

that's not true. It is an attempt to emphasize their true intent, to address the fear that a "suicide bomber" will be seen as somehow on a higher plane than a guy blowing up people from a distance. even the dumbest red state guy knows that a "homicide bomber" is much harder to stop because he is the delivery system.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[Diane_Keaton]

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).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I think that Diane's point was the best one -- the reason they are called "suicide bombers" is because now the bombers themselves are the weapon. This distinguishes them from the PLO and IRA and ETA (etc.) terrorist bombers of the past, who blew other people up without (intentionally, anyway) blowing themselves up in the process.

Agreed.

[Diane_Keaton]

STP

[Hank Chinaski]

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).

I'll stand with NotBob and agree with Diane.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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).

Diane, I have to quibble with your second point about how we should side with the victims. But I think that's implied.

But the problem with "homicide bomber" is it sounds, generally speaking, stupid. It's as though Fox were too stupid to understand that "suicide bomber" is just a way of describing a certain type of bomber. It's a dumb knee-jerkresponse that assumes the word "suicide bomber" is some leftist term coined by CNN or Reuters to give gravitas to those bombers. It's clearly not. It's just a descriptive.

Now, Fox isn't stupid. But they know a lot of their audience is. So what they've done is play to the dim bastards who think "suicide bomber" is a Lefty term. Really, at the end of the day, its nothing more than a trick of branding. Fox is trying, cynically, to distinguish itself by purposefully misconstruing a vanilla, descriptive term. And it knows how idiotic "homicide bomber" sounds, yet it pushes the term anyway, because it knows that to a certain uneducated sector of our society, using "homicide bomber" looks like the network is "taking a stand against all them damned lefties."

The term "homicide bomber" doesn't offend me so much as it saddens me. We have a nation of people who can so easily be cowed with these slick propaganda tricks? It's upsetting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Diane, I have to quibble with your second point about how we should side with the victims. But I think that's implied.

But the problem with "homicide bomber" is it sounds, generally speaking, stupid. It's as though Fox were too stupid to understand that "suicide bomber" is just a way of describing a certain type of bomber. It's a dumb knee-jerkresponse that assumes the word "suicide bomber" is some leftist term coined by CNN or Reuters to give gravitas to those bombers. It's clearly not. It's just a descriptive.

Now, Fox isn't stupid. But they know a lot of their audience is. So what they've done is play to the dim bastards who think "suicide bomber" is a Lefty term. Really, at the end of the day, its nothing more than a trick of branding. Fox is trying, cynically, to distinguish itself by purposefully misconstruing a vanilla, descriptive term. And it knows how idiotic "homicide bomber" sounds, yet it pushes the term anyway, because it knows that to a certain uneducated sector of our society, using "homicide bomber" looks like the network is "taking a stand against all them damned lefties."

The term "homicide bomber" doesn't offend me so much as it saddens me. We have a nation of people who can so easily be cowed with these slick propaganda tricks? It's upsetting.

does it's use make you more or less sad than in November 2000 when Hillary said "We need to do away with the electoral college." I mean Fox is in the business of selling; she could get to be president.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Diane, I have to quibble with your second point about how we should side with the victims. But I think that's implied.

But the problem with "homicide bomber" is it sounds, generally speaking, stupid. It's as though Fox were too stupid to understand that "suicide bomber" is just a way of describing a certain type of bomber. It's a dumb knee-jerkresponse that assumes the word "suicide bomber" is some leftist term coined by CNN or Reuters to give gravitas to those bombers. It's clearly not. It's just a descriptive.

Now, Fox isn't stupid. But they know a lot of their audience is. So what they've done is play to the dim bastards who think "suicide bomber" is a Lefty term. Really, at the end of the day, its nothing more than a trick of branding. Fox is trying, cynically, to distinguish itself by purposefully misconstruing a vanilla, descriptive term. And it knows how idiotic "homicide bomber" sounds, yet it pushes the term anyway, because it knows that to a certain uneducated sector of our society, using "homicide bomber" looks like the network is "taking a stand against all them damned lefties."

The term "homicide bomber" doesn't offend me so much as it saddens me. We have a nation of people who can so easily be cowed with these slick propaganda tricks? It's upsetting.

I have nothing against Fox calling them homicide bombers. Fox has done so many stupider things, why get exercised over this one?

But, for consistency's sake, I think they should also refer to "homicide shooters", "homicide killers" and "homicide jacks".

Any suggestions on appropriate adjectives for Fox commentators?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does it's use make you more or less sad than in November 2000 when Hillary said "We need to do away with the electoral college." I mean Fox is in the business of selling; she could get to be president.

Why did you throw this pile of apples into a discussion of oranges?

I agree with you that Hillary is an awful, frightening candidate. And I am as disgusted that she might be able to bullshit the nation into electing her as I am that Fox bullshits viewers.

They are parts of the same problem, and it is incurable. And it is why when I have enough money I will be purchasing a compound where I will hide. Naked and loaded and forgetting, forgetting, forgetting.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But the problem with "homicide bomber" is it sounds, generally speaking, stupid. It's as though Fox were too stupid to understand that "suicide bomber" is just a way of describing a certain type of bomber. It's a dumb knee-jerkresponse that assumes the word "suicide bomber" is some leftist term coined by CNN or Reuters to give gravitas to those bombers. It's clearly not. It's just a descriptive.

Now, Fox isn't stupid. But they know a lot of their audience is. So what they've done is play to the dim bastards who think "suicide bomber" is a Lefty term. Really, at the end of the day, its nothing more than a trick of branding. Fox is trying, cynically, to distinguish itself by purposefully misconstruing a vanilla, descriptive term. And it knows how idiotic "homicide bomber" sounds, yet it pushes the term anyway, because it knows that to a certain uneducated sector of our society, using "homicide bomber" looks like the network is "taking a stand against all them damned lefties."

What he said. It's also become another little code word that right wingers can use to identify themselves to each other, like "Democrat Party." When you hear someone going out of their way to use terms like that you know that the rest of the party line can't be far behind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
What he said. It's also become another little code word that right wingers can use to identify themselves to each other,

like arguing about it's use is a code for you guys.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
like arguing about it's use is a code for you guys.

The only one who has a strong feeling on this one is Sebby. The rest of us are just snickering at you.