Referring to people who deliberately target and murder innocent people as “homicidal” rather than “suicidal” is PC? Oy, vey is mir! You’re joking, right? Where, precisely, does PC come into this?
It’s a more accurate term. The main purpose of the bomber is to kill Israelis.
Where is the dichotomy? And who has argued that Suicide bombings are not stupid?
If I may just address milroyj’s hijack/misconception, “whinging” is actually a totally different word to whining. It is not the same word with a different spelling. Personally, I always think of whinging as like whining only with more gusto.
So stop whinging.
pan
Congratulations, you’ve just obliterated all distinction between a suicide bomber and a schmuck like Timothy McVeigh. Not to mention all differences between a suicide bomber and the pilot of a B-52 carpet bombing Taliban troops.
Minty Green, WTF? There is no difference between McVeigh and a suicide bomber; both have the intent to kill people and sow terror in their enemies. But there is a major difference between a suicide bomber and a B-52 pilot. A suicide bomber makes no distinction between civilian and military; a suicide bombing in intended to kill for the sake of killing. A military pilot, OTOH is a) attaxking troops in the field, not civilians, and b) is operating as part of a military campaign to stop terror, not to foment it.
Moreover, our pilots in Afghanistan dropped food packages to feed civilians; how many suicide bombers do that?
And? What’s the problem there?
Right. There is no distinction between that schmuck McVeigh and those schmucl suicide bombers.
Well, McVeigh murdered a lot more innocent people than any “suicide bomber” so far, but that’s just a matter of time. The suicide bombers will be killing hundreds, instead of dozens, when they get more-lethal weapons.
Note the report that the recent bus bombing included a attempt to use cyanide along with the explosive. Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines This effort at chemical warfare failed, but the next one may succeed.
Riddle of the day: [sub]When is chemical warfare not an atrocity? When it’s used against Israel.[/sub] 
There is not a dichotomy properly said, they are 2 different issues.
- is bigotry.
- depending on how it is framed (and excluding the WTC straw man interjected therein) is analysis, a concept you may in fact be innocent of if I am to judge by your postings. Understanding the motivations and the like of bombers etc is not apologia ipso facto, but outside the real of the anti-rational ideologue, an integral part of coming to grips in an informed and reasoned way with a problem and formulating what may not be a blundering reaction. Of course, some ‘understanding’ may not be analytical at all, but blind excuse making, however, the general matter is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
BTW, as to the unfelicitious but newly neo-con-PC phrase ‘Homicide Bombings’ let me point out the following:
(a) Bombings by their nature -ex those which do not target people at all, which seem vanishingly rare- are murderous.
(b) 'Homicide bombings thus has an air of redundancy to it (and in the case of failed bombings, actually factually incorrect, but let us leave aside logic, not the strong suit of the ideologues) and
(c) misses a key point, the act of suicide of the actual bomber.
As such – and I rather like this for it reveals the stink of illogic and hypocrisy in all that continued whinging on about “PC” and the like – it really is nothing more than a political gambit, poorly thought out at that, to reframe a dimly percieved “sensation” of losing political ground.
Odd that, as it is precisely what the same folks complain about in re perceived PC when other sacred cows are gored.
Bloody hypocrites, and illogical fools.
I am in lots of different places, and me English has become quite international. As noted of course, your assumption as to whinging being the same as “wining” is wrong.
Suck it up.
Although the two words can be synonyms, they have different etymologies and slightly different meanings.
Collounsbury, while you are spot-on that understanding the motivations of suicide bombers in order to combat them more effectively in not the same as a blanket apologia, you will find that Efrem’s posts are, in fact, exercises in excuse-making and handwaving. I have very little patience with people who blast Israel’s actions on the West Bank yet ask for understanding and sympathy for suicide bombers.
I do agree with you that using the phrase “homicide bombing” is a barbarous tautology. I understand the desire to emphasize the victims over the bomber, but “suicide bombing” is a useful phrase that details the method, whereas “homicide bombing” is just a bit of right-wing PC moralizing that is also Gawdawful English.
I beg to differ, the suicide bomber makes a clear distinction between civilian and military targets, and usually chooses to attack civilians.
I know you’re thinking of those brave American pilots flying over Afghanistan, but does the city of Dresden ring a bell? Deliberate bombing of civilian targets, albeit in the name of “stopping terror”, as per your point “b”.
And then there was London, and Rotterdam, both bombed by military pilots - who happened to fight for the “terror” side.
It’s all a matter of perspective.
December said:
If their main purpose was to kill Israeli’s, they would park a car bomb and get the fuck out of there. The emphasis is on suicide because in their warped interpretation of Islam, that’s what gets one to heaven: sacrifice of one’s life for the Intifada. Hence, the correct term is “suicide bomber”.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, this “suicide bomber”/“homicide bomber” thing is . . . Christ on a crutch. When some wingnut shoots his wife and kids, then himself, we don’t call it a “suicide-murder,” we call it a “murder-suicide.”
If all bombings are murderous, then why did we need to add the “suicide” modifier in the first place? It would appear – and maybe I’m just reading to much into it – that the modifier is added to attract attention or sympathy for the perpetrator or the group to which he belonged. Attention or sympathy, that is, beyond the amount required for comprehension and analysis.
… except that dude yesterday, who deliberately blew up his car whilst passing a bus full of Israeli soldiers on their way to their base. So you’re both wrong. 
Yes, I have said that Suicide Bombings are understandable, but I have also said everything is understandable. The actions of Israel is understandable, but not correct; the actions of Suicide Bombers are understandable, but also not correct. Get it. You shouldn’t agree with either and the actions of both are down right hurtful. If you can’t see that both are contributing to an endless cycle of violence you are an Idiot.
Errrr… gobear is right, Cheesesteak is wrong. Gah.
Actually, a common Israeli tactic is to retaliate against terrorists by blowing up their homes. Some call this tactic a human rights abuse.
The term “homocide bombing” helps focus on the difference between killing human beings and destroying real estate.
Well, PLD, if you engage your logical facilities, if perhaps only for some novelty value, you might note that typically it is difficult to commit a murder in the typical fashion (shooting, stabbing) *after[/i having commited suicide. Do not I said typical, from whence the usage arises. Obviously we can all cite to twisted exceptions or imagine the same.
It’s simply a usage arising from, and perhaps this may be shocking to you, the sequence of events. Terribly logical that, eh?
Really the strain of the ideological to achieve justification must hurt. May I be so very, very bold in suggesting that the history of political bombings shows that in large part that they have not been done … by suicidal bombers? No, my dear, dear PLD, we note with the odd exception of the incompetent who blows himself up by accident, that folks such as the Basque ETA, the Irish IRA, Columbian terror orgs, Sri Lankan bombed --to kill, and ergo murder-- without suicides!
Perhaps this is news to you, or perhaps the myopic new obsession among the neo-Cons has forgotten that suicide bombing is a nasty new innovation – it also is somewhat accurate in its description insofar as the act of suicide, pressing the detonater comes with or ‘before’ the ‘bombing’ – effect of the explosion on others.
It would only appear to someone who has whipped himmself up into some idiotic ideological froth, or has swallowed the latest neo-Con PC obsession hook line and sinker insofar as (a) it strikes me that suicides coming in conjuction with killing and maiming others attract at best a disdainful pity (in the case of privately motivated attacks) or absolute disgust and (b) the description suicide is in fact a motherfucking technically accurate description of a relatively new ‘innovation’ in bombing.
This is indeed an example of ‘political correctness’ in re language at its illogical worst.
Fucking moronic.
As for december’s intervention … nah never mind, no need to waste electrons on a congenital idiot.
But, that’s not what you were posting in GD; you flat-out refused to condemn suicide bombing, and, in fact, praised them
That’s not trying to understand the root causes of terrorism; that’s flat-out admiration of murder.
Well, gee, since that’s the same fucking point I’ve been making all along, it’s sure swell of you to reiterate it. The IDF shelling Arafat’s headquarters is useless, dangerous, and sure to harm innocent people. Sharon has to find another way.
Amazing, this from a guy whose nation was occupied by the Germans. Ask Anne Frank if the difference between the Allies and the Nazis is “all just a matter of perspective.”
I can’t justify the firebombing of Dresden, Berlin or Leipzig. The war was nearly over, and Dresden wasn’t even a military target. One could say that it was payback for the Holocaust, but that doesn’t hold up as a rationale.
But if you wish to use Dresden to form some moral equivalency between Roosevelt and Hitler, to disdain all moral judgements, to say that there is no difference between the IDF and Hamas…words fail me.
Saying that these matters are only shades of gray is just as wrong, IMO, as December’s viewing the Mideast struggle only in black and white.