Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
"Homocide" Bombings
Topic Started: Apr 23 2004, 12:44 PM (690 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Some time ago President Bush encouged the use of the term "Homocide" bombing instead of the term "Suicide" bombing. I've noticed Fox News has adopted the practice. I'm assuming "Suicide" implies myrterdom and therefore glorifies the act somehow -- but I'm not sure it makes much sense to change the term in this sense.

Anyone out there in favor of the term "Homicide" bomber? Can you give your rational?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I'm in favor of it.

A suicide bomber could simply strap TNT to himself, walk out into the middle of a deserted field, yell, "Arafat akbar!" and detonate. THAT is suicide.

Blowing yourself up in the middle of a group of commuters, or in a club, or restaurant for the purpose of killing as many people as possible... THAT is homicide!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

So "Homicide" is a better description than "Suicide" because the term "Suicide" neglects to take into account the victims of the attack. I guess that makes sense.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
That's the way I see it, anyway.

Of course others may not see it as homicide, but instead see these people as some distorted view of freedom fighter.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Yo-Yo
Member Avatar
Captain
To me 'homicide' bomber makes more sense i guess, but i'm really used to the older term.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
It makes sense to call it what it is, Homocide!(IMO)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
The point of these terrorists is not solely to sacrifice their lives, but to take innocent lives. Note that this recent series in Iraq, killed more civilians (estimates include approximately 20 children) than any police or military personnel. When the point is to take the life/lives of another/others then this clearly fits the definition of homicide. If these guys did this in the midst of a stand-up fight with military personnel, I would be a bit more ambivalent about what word one uses, but their targets, more often than not, are innocent civilians.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Just a cynical play on words for propoganda purposes , and an attempt to change the language to suit narrow political ends (by spin doctors). The wording used to describe the act is important to those who are trying to make a political point.

Homocide gains no sympathy , suicide can gain a simpathetic response.

The people killed by them are just as dead.

Let us perhaps call the doctrime of preemption the doctrime of offensive first strike.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I guess you have a problem with the legal definition of homicide, then? You were the first to accuse the Israelis of using human shields.

I'm still unaware of the letter "m" in the word "doctrine."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Apr 24 2004, 02:06 AM
Homocide gains no sympathy , suicide can gain a simpathetic response.

Thos who wantonly kill innocent people to suit their narrow political ends disserve no sympathy.

A Buddhist monk who sets him self aflame in protest is a suicide arsonist. A man who kills children with TNT is a homicide bomber.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
The question is why these young people are choosing to kill themselves and to attack Israel the way they do ?

We have a concept here - murder suicide (where the murderer kills him/her self), which is probably more applicable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Apr 24 2004, 10:45 PM
We have a concept here - murder suicide (where the murderer kills him/her self), which is probably more applicable.

That probably would be the best term as it encompasses all that is going on.


Quote:
 
The question is why these young people are choosing to kill themselves and to attack Israel the way they do ?
Because they are being mislead by power hungry leaders, who want nothing more then the violence to continue. The first day of peace will be the last day Arafat and others are important and they don’t want that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
I have used the term “homicide bomber” off and on for many years. I do think homicide bomber more accurately describes the viciousness of the suicide action. The suicide bomber isn’t simply blowing himself up to commit suicide, but going into a crowded area (e.g. buses, market place) to inflict harm (death) upon as many people as he (some females) can while he commits his suicide act.

Furthermore, the term ‘homicide’ rightly takes away from the glorification (or martyrdom nature) of the act itself. The act itself isn’t glamorous or sacrificing in anyway, but it is pure indiscriminant destruction inflicted upon others (innocents).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
So you think the desperate economic circumstances the Palestinians have had to endure for the last few decades as a result of Israeli policies towards them has nothing to do with it ?

As to Arafat's motivations ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Apr 24 2004, 11:25 PM
So you think the desperate economic circumstances the Palestinians have had to endure for the last few decades as a result of Israeli policies towards them has nothing to do with it ?


I believe its the circumstances placed on the Palestinians by all groups in the regain (there Islamic brothers and the head terrorists as well) not just Israelis that makes them more susceptible to out side influence. But I do not believe this by it self would be enough to turn this deadly. It’s the actions of those at the top who are using this misfortune to their advantage and are steering the discomfort to their own power agendas rather then the good of the Palestinians. Yes in the past, and still today there are prejudices, but this world is working through this, I do believe if the terrorists leaders where to stop causing trouble, the Palestinian people would get all they want. I also believe these same leaders know this to be fact, and that they purposely keep this form happening so that they will not lose the power and prestige they now have.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus