TheAgitator.com
Suicide Solution
Sunday, June 27th, 2004Jim Henley adds fresh juice to the silly hawk habit of calling suicide bombers “homicide bombers.”
Frankly, I like Andrew Sullivan’s accidental solution best.
But then, those of you who got mad at me for suggesting we wrap terrorist remains in bacon probably won’t take kindly to posthumously assaulting their sexuality, either.
I never got mad at you !! I simply disagreed :)
My opinion: if one blows oneself up but without another dying that is suicide however he has commited both homicide and suicide.
The change in rhetoric was meant to affect opinion in the United States, where suicide is looked upon with pity and compassion by many, not in Palestine (as if there were such a place).
I prefer “murdering terrorist assholes” myself.
This whole exercize is pointless. It reminds of the “Freedom Fries” debacle. It doesn’t matter what you call the damn thing.
Personally, I find suicide bombing, or whatever you call it, appalling. People in San Francisco (my crazy town) tend to have a different view of it. You’re not going to convince me that it’s any thing other than reprehensible, even if you called something like “liberty bombing.” And, you’re not going to convince a San Francisco “Democrat” that it’s anything other than a natural reaction to oppression, even if you call it “civilian-targetted smart bombing.” Any attempt to change the vernacular in an effort to change people’s minds will fail miserably, and generally make you look like a douche bag in the process.
How about cowardly cretins?
Israeli bullets dipped in bacon grease.
Just ‘terrorist’ does it for me.
Sparky,
It’s not as pointless an exercise as one might think. In fact, I would argue, it says quite a bit about how linguistics and slight changes in descriptors play a major role in the propegandizing from our politicians and media talking heads.
Any attempt to change the vernacular in an effort to change people’s minds will fail miserably, and generally make you look like a douche bag in the process.
You put too much faith in the intellectual independence of the ‘Merkan people. If it didn’t work, they probably wouldn’t still be doing it. If it happens enough, for long enough, and mindless worker drones see/hear it day in and day out, then it permeates their subconscious. And in this country, far too many of these worker drones tie their political identity to whatever the automotons on FNC or AirAmerica say.
I agree, “changes in vernacular” shouldn’t matter. They should not have an effect. But they do.
Just a quick jab:
All you folks who like to ascribe your own designation to these people who are, quite simply, murderers and suicidists (is that a word?), do you also support so-called “hate-crime” legislation? The reason I ask is this: As Steve Lilenthal pointed out in his recent Price of Liberty entry, hate-crime legislation threatens a major traditional tenet of anglo-american law: that the intention to perpetrate violence/harm is what is important, not the motivation behind it.
It just seems, to me, that if you’re going to treat “terrorist bombers” any different from regular old “homicide bombers”, then you cannot, logically, oppose the idea of “hate” crime legislation.
Evan, I treat anyone with intent to kill civilians the same way. I am also opposed to hate crime legislation. It’s a silly idea.
bernard, do you include the executioners preparing to kill civilian criminals with that?
Bernard,
Same here. I am under the belief that it is foolish to give these murderers the satisfaction of acknowledging their ability to “terrorize”. They are murderers. The guys who flew the planes into the WTC & Pentagon were murderers. To acknowledge them as the bringers or terror is to acknowledge that their mission is working. They INTEND to terrorize. If we simply call them murderers, then we deny them the knowledge that they have succeeded. Sure, it’s just semantics, but if we refused to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is a “terrorist” organization, and instead, just a bunch of murderers, what would happen then? Just a thought.
Wade,
Please, let us not turn this into a criminal punishment debate. That’s a different argument altogether.
JD-
Here’s the thing: The word for someone who kills other people (or tries to) with explosives is “bomber.” “Homicide bomber” is pretty much redundant; we call people who plan non-murderous explosions “demolitions experts.” “Suicide bomber” usefully informs us that these particular murderous bombers also kill themselves in the act. (I don’t think we’d call someone who just decided to commit suicide via explosion, which would be a rather unusual choice, a “bomber” at all.)
Wade, no. I was sloppy in my wording. I’m not a huge fan of capital punishment (on practical grounds, rather than emotional ones), but I see a clear difference between legal killing and murder.
To restate:
I treat anyone with intent to murder civilians the same way.
Evan, I don’t get your point. Terrorists DO terrorise the population. As has earlier been pointed out, calling it something different won’t change that fact.
sorry, why is calling them homos an insult??
This is nothing more than a semantical argument. It makes no difference what you call these people. Relabeling will not change them from murdering fools into freedom fighters. Old Willie Shakespeare knew: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And a load a crap is still a load of crap even if you dress it up and call it cake. Let’s not get hung up on artifical definitions. Call these bastards what they are: murdering swine.
“sorry, why is calling them homos an insult??”
It needn’t be. But I’m pretty certain it would be to the bombers and those who make martyrs of them.
Once a suicide bomber has been properly identified, seek out and execute his grand-father, father, uncles, brothers, nephews and sons. This action, performed only a few times will convince the future, would be bombers that their plan is flawed.