Now, that is what I call Canadian humor
Posted on 04/02/2006 12:39:39 PM PDT by Tasha Dasha Doo
It is on CTV news channel.
Just breaking - explosion in a coffee shop in downtown Toronto, Canada.
Reporter just talked about some sort of explosives strapped to a guy and explosion occured in a busy district of the city.
Will keep you posted!
We're only going to hear what they want us to hear so there's no panic or "retaliation".
I'm sure they're quietly assuming it's a terrorist because anything else would be totally irresponsible.
IIRC a few years ago, a delayed second explosion was used in the bombing of an abortion clinic in the US.
"Mr. Islam learned about ...."
I'm curious what one has to do to get oneself crowned "Mr. Islam". Is it a bodybuilding contest? Did he have on a tiara?
Are you thinking of the guy at the El Al counter?
---
ON THE NET...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891588/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/710917/posts
Initially, I was hoping that the one dead was only the bomber himself.
"No gas in bathroom"
Then how will the Tidy Bowl Man run his outboard?
I'd have to leave it to the experts to solve that one.
Charles Bishop (Bishra)'s suicide flight into a bank building in a stolen plane was also labelled "not terrorism" despite his suicide note calling it that and his praise for Bin Laden.
Instead we were told how acne medicine made him do it.
I love the English language too. IMO, both terms are inadequate, neither particularly better than the other, and neither worth wasting any emotion over.
Take care, Huck.
"Homicide bomber" has got to be the most retarded label ever invented.. . .
Fox News makes fools of themselves every time they use this contrived, meaningless, emotional, retarded term. Thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly. Ted Kaczynski was a bomber. Timothy McVeigh was a bomber. If they strapped explosives to their bodies and blew themselves up in the process, they would be suicide bombers.
As I recall, it wasn't Fox that started the ball rolling, but none other than G. Dubya B. that originally dropped that term on the world.
My own opinion is that it was a trial balloon, intended to give some indication of the administration's ability to apply spin. If people started using the term, then hooray, things are going great, the administration can set the agenda, blah blah blah. If it falls like a lead balloon, then never mention it again; it would have been the "Microsoft Bob" of political spin controls.
At least, I think they would have walked away from it like a three-rider elevator fart. I could be wrong, though. They could have "Gerald Forded" it into the ground like those silly "W.I.N." buttons that would not go away.
In any case, I think that the administration will consider its "street (politcal) capital" to be commensurate with whatever degree people continue to use that term ("H.B.")
I've refused to use it from day one, because I refuse to let myself be "Yay, Team!"'d into anything, and, it makes NO sense whatsoever from a grammatical or logical standpoint.
The "old" term -- "suicide bomber" -- does make logical and grammatical sense when used to describe these sick bastards -- and, it accurately conveys the chillingly pathological mentality behind the foul act. As one of y'all pointed out, there are "bombers", and there are "suicide bombers". Kaszynsky, McVeigh, Meteskey... they were "bombers". Every smokin' Abdul with his head hanging from one lampost and his ass from another, due to his having made the "Press 1 for Hot Date with 72 Virgins" decision... now that was a "suicide" bomber.
But to disregard that obvious, accurate, descriptive terminology, because, hey, Dubya told us to call 'em "homicide" bombers... well, good grief, have we NO self-respect? What if he'd told us to call them "peace-hating" bombers? Or "unloving persons"? Where do we draw the line? For me, I draw the line at being told what to say, period.
If someone wants me to spout propaganda, then they're gonna be disappointed. I call 'em as I see 'em, NOT as I'm told to call 'em.
That Fox persists in the use of that awkward jawbreaker of a bone-headed term... sad, very sad.
#426
Interesting.
remember that well along with what a fine patriotic boy he was....according to his classmates.
Bingo.
Huck and Drew were correct, and there's no call to be namecalling about it."Suicide bomber" is an accurate term in that it describes a bomber that blows himself up in the process. An bomber that leaves a bomb somewhere to kill others but not himself is *also* committing homicide. Calling the former a "homocide bomber" and not the latter, is inaccurate.
The term "suicide bomber" refers to the sort of plan the perpetrator had, and is a more useful description of what happened.
If this form of imposed-propaganda was in use during WWII, then Japanese Kamikaze bombers would have been called "ship bombers", or "aerial bombers" -- both "accurate" so far as they go, which ain't very far, because it ignores the fact that the enemy was so desperate, so lacking in respect for even their own lives, that they would throw them away wholesale in SUICIDE attacks.
To erase the SUICIDE aspect of that kind of attack, is tantamount to the way the Soviets would airbrush "former leaders" out of group photographs when they fell out of favor.
When a "culture" is so sick, twisted, and perverted that it sends its children out with explosives attached to their bodies, to throw away their lives by making them into the "delivery system" for a bomb, then it is WRONG to ignore that monstrosity, by classifying them along with other monsters who "merely" place their bombs, and then leave.
My bet is that he was hooking up the power source (batteries) to the detonator and trigger and either got his wires crossed or flipped the wrong switch.
Most 'deadman' swittches for detonators are a normal closed configuration, release pressure and the circuit is complete (as opposed to a deadman switch on a subway train, which would open the circuit and stop the train). If he was wiring the thing and hooked the power up so that it was routed through the switch without maintaining pressure on the switch, he would suffer from premature jihadulation.
Whatever his motive, I am glad that he is the only one killed.
These bombers aren't interested in only taking their own life, they wish to take others, thus the term "homicide bomber" is more apt.Well no, because neither are they interested in taking only others' lives. They definitely intend to take their own, hence "homicide bomber", which is a redundancy anyway, doesn't tell the story. Timothy McVeigh was a homicide bomber. But clearly, his means and methods were not the same as a suicide bomber.
We all know what a suicide bomber is. No one was confused about it. No one thought that suicide bombers were merely bombing themselves. We all knew that a suicide bomber is someone who has explosives on his person and detonates them in a public place to commit a terrorist act, like blowing up a bus or a pizzaria. We've seen it in Israel many times and there is no confusion about it.
Homicide bomber is akin to freedom fries. It's usage is political, not factual. It serves emotion, not clarity. And it's clearly moronic.
Once again, bingo.
The description is "bomber". The type of bomber -- the classification, categorization, clarification, is suicide bomber.
It takes a very special kind of sick to strap explosives to one's body and walk into a restaurant to detonate.
Yes, of course it's very very sick for someone to walk in and leave a bomb -- but to blow oneself up with the victims, this takes a "special" kind of mental sickness.
And the term for that kind of bombing is suicide bombing.
To erase the "s-word" is to HIDE the fact that the bomber was so perverse, so driven, that he intentionally took his own life with those of his victims.
To the die-hard doctrinare "I'll use the word 'cuz Dubya WANTS me to use the word!" crowd, I would pose a rhetorical question: Precisely HOW would you differentiate between a "homicide bomber" who does NOT blow himself up with his victims, and a "homicide bomber" who DOES blow himself up with his victims?
I pose this as a rhetorical question because I think I already know the answer. The answer would be something along the lines of, "You MORON [they seem to love personal insults, I've noticed], the bomber who didn't blow himself up is JUST a 'bomber'. The bomber who DID blow himself up is a HOMICIDE bomber!"
Thus, we see demonstrated the power of propaganda --"suicide" is defined as "homicide"! And what of a bomber who blows up a building? Like, for instance, those SOBs who recently got caught after blowing up a string of churches?
They weren't "suicide bombers", so we can't call them "homicide bombers" :) And, they weren't trying to kill anyone, so I guess we can't call them "bombers" either!
Wow, has anyone contacted their defense counsel? This newspeak/newthink silliness may be just the ticket to get them acquitted! LOL!
"Well, no, y'see, it's really simple. If a guy blows himself up when blowing someone else up, he's a 'homicide' bomber, but if he only blows the other guy up, then he's just a 'bomber'. But, if he blows someTHING up, without hurting himself, well... he's not a 'bomber', since no one got hurt. So I guess he's jes' a good ol' boy out havin' some FUN!"
Yeah, that's the ticket.
On a more serious note, there's a bit of a "gramatically ominous" parallel, namely, the Second Amendment. The "imposed confusion" vis-a-vis the "militia clause", versus the "shall not be infringed" clause, is in a very real way similar to the imposed BS regarding suicide bomber nomenclature.
The same bad logic that insists that the "right to keep and bear arms" is only to be applied to the National Guard, is at its core no different from the "logic" that would twist the meaning of the word BOMBER, making it subservient to the type of bombing.
[timewarp]
"In other news, fifty captured Japanese officers committed homicide with their swords, while left unguarded in solitary detention..."
Apparently simple obvious facts are doubleplusungood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.