Replies

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..."