This is in Great Debates because, IMHO, IMHO & MPSIMS don’t exactly lend themselves to what this discussion will likely become. The BBQ Pit is where “side discussions” from this thread will likely go; however, I think that the meat of the discussion can remain here.
On to the question!
Are the terrorist bombers who are attacking Israel “Suicide Bombers” or "Homicide Bombers?"
My take: I say they’re murderes and thus homicide bombers correctly describes them. Consider for a moment how other recent events have been reported by the news media: man kills ex-wife and their two children=>“Murder-Suicide.” Sounds to me like the readership is ready for a correct description of a murderer.
Well I’ll have to stick with the phrase suicide bombers. A suicide bomber is a fanatic who is willing to sacrafice his life for the multiple deaths of his enemy. These people are not the same kind of people that send letter bombs.
I’d go with “suicide bombers” Most people who detonate bombs in places do so with the intent of killing people. These people are unusual because they’re willing to kill themselves to do it.
The point, to me, is that there seems to be some kind of nobility given by some to those who are engaged in carrying out this type of bombing. Sort of like “suicide missions” glorified in old war movies.
These clowns ain’t glorious. They’re just murderers.
When someone kills another, then kills him/herself, the act is referred to as a “murder-suicide.” It seems then that “murder-suicide bomber,” though a mouthful, seems the most accurate term.
The side issue here is whether FOX News did anything wrong by following the White House lead, because I understand they now refer solely to “homicide bombers.”
Of course, whether they’re kowtowing to Cousin George - or simply hopping on a cool trend that nobody thought of before - depends on whether the term “homicide bombers” is merely spin or a more accurate description. That, it seems, is a judgment call.
Me, I vote with the ol’ standby “suicide bombers” for the reasonsa already mentioned.
If the bomb goes off, the person is a bomber. If the bomb goes of while strapped to the bomber’s waist, the person is a suicide bomber. If the suicide bomber kills anyone else, the suicide bomber is a murderer. Quite a few suicide bombers have detonated their bombs without killing anyone else, so they can’t possibly be described as “homicide” bombers. All things considered, “suicide bomber” is the most accurate phrase.
Besides, “homicide bomber” sounds incredibly stupid and smacks of the same sort of rhetorical nonsense that conservatives usually decry as “P.C.”
I have no idea. Personally, if someone invaded where I lived with tanks and shit, and killed people I knew, I might think about killing myself and a few of the people who did this to try and stop what was going on as a message. Lots of messages demand a larger response. You can’t ignore it. I don’t know the whole history behind the Palistinine/Israeli debate. I’ve seen spam about Britain giving Palestine to Israel in the 1970’s (??) What I make of it from my limited (doesn’t affect my life) experience is that people want land. (Je ne suis pas Arabique/Judaise)
I think the way the Israelies have acted is beyond reproach.
Terrorism: There are times when all people have to exact change is to impose terror upon others. This is beget by systems people have imposed which deny people of what they believe is just.
(uh (C) or something)
OK, so we can’t give palestine to the israelis or the palestinians,
and we can’t split palestine and divide it fairly…
Is there a shitload of oil there or what ?
Well, I’d say there have been many situations just as bad or worse in which people did not resort to the killing of civilians. (Or when they did, they were unquestioningly deemed imoral/wrong.) Say Bosnia, Rwanda, Nazi Germany for just a few examples. Why is this any more of a reason to put bombs in pizza parlors or dance clubs or shopping centers?
I agree that many many innocent Palestinians have been horribly treated, but just as the Jews in concentration camps wouldn’t have tried to kill German kids, suicide-murderers are wrong.
More to the OP point, I think the important point is not that they are bombers, but that they commit suicide to murder (though I think the motivations may be a little more than that), so I think the label should be “suicide-murders” and you can add “bombers” if you’d like. (How about SMBs?)
I heard a bit on the radio the other day about how a number of newspapers have stopped calling them “terrorists” because that equates what they did with the 9/11 folk. Why don’t we just call them all “Terrorists,” however they do it?
Just wondering, did you mean this (that they did not deserve reproach) or were you trying to say they deserved reproach? Just curious.
Ahhh…because my house just got leveled by a tank? People here will blow up a pizza place because they got fired. Don’t tell me that you are just that ignorant of the human condition. Geezus.
They’re “smart bombers”, similiar to the precision laser guided munitions that the US army uses. They’re directed to go to cause the most damage, destruction and psychological impact. These “smart bombers” are very effective too, those that engage in killing in a more “civilized” way just don’t get why anyone would want to be a “smart bomber”. The concept of killing groups of people and yourself seems “dumb” when you can just drop bombs and missles and a group of people and achieve the same end without harm to yourself.
Use both terms. Those who murder and injure others while blowing themselves up could be identified as homicide-bombers. Those who only harm themselves, suicide bombers.
Which of the people having Passover dinner in Israel attacked Palestinians? What important military targets have the Palestinians been targeting?
You said you would kill the people who killed your friends and invaded your home. Why would you deny the Israelis the same right, just because they have tanks instead of explosive belts?
So what justifies blowing up innocent people? Because their army invaded my home? How about because I can’t find a job? How about because I don’t agree with someones political position? Maybe I would be justified blowing up someone just because I don’t like them?
So you’re saying that in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Nazi Germany they just “fired” people? And that’s why the victimized population did not resort to attacking civillians? Or are you saying that “people here” do it, too?
I’m saying that if the people in many other equally horrible, or much worse, situations had the moral strength to not attack civilians (on second thought, maybe I should leave Rwanda out of the argument) why don’t the extremist Palestinians also? [Note: I’m not blaming or attacking Palestinians. Only those who feel- for whatever reason- that killing civillians (whatever the age/creed/intentions) is justified.]
And good points mssmith57.
I have to admit, that while I empathize with the desperation that drives people to hate so much. The hate becomes directed at all the individuals in the group (predjudice anyone?), equating babies, teenagers, middle-aged and elderly, whether they are in the army or are peace activists as equally evil and so worthy of being killed.
I don’t understand the justification. How does killing kids in a club justified? Is it because they think the deaths will hasten the peacefull establishment of the state of Palestine, and therefore, the deaths/injuries are worthwhile? The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is not as difficult to draw as that between freedom fighter and rebel. (The first distinction has nothing to do with the validity of the cause- just the method. The second is political.)
P.C.
Sorry for the long rant. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Sorry, but I really don’t like the term “homicide bomber”. It’s non-descriptive, redundant, and patronizing. It could just as easily be applied to Timothy McVeigh; he was a bomber who committed homicide.
I don’t find the term “suicide bomber” to be sympathetic or glamorous, simply descriptive. If you really dislike it, then just refer to them as “terrorists” or “murderers” (you’ll get no argument from me! They are cold-blooded murderers.)
We don’t call arsonists “burn arsonists”, we don’t call hit-men “homicide shooters”. That would just sound silly.
If we try to influence world opinion in such transparent ways it just ends up reinforcing the unfortunate stereotype of the US taking a patronizing attitiude towards the rest of the world. We really don’t need to give the impression that we think everyone else is so easily manipulated. That does not help us.
They called 'em suicide missions in old war movies because they were particularly dangerous missions. They didn’t call them that because they were sending soldiers out there specifically to die. Uh, except for kamikazi pilots I guess.
