"Homicide bombers"

[Daliman]

Is Fox News the only station to use this moronic term? I seem to remember a year or so ago someone mentioning that "suicide bombers" should be called "homocide bombers" because they are killing other people too, but I really thought no one would be stupid enough to actually call them this seriously. ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

If this IS strictly a Fox News thing, it does nothing for their journalistic credibility, which is low anyways. If other major stations are usuing it, WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker, and possibly make his act seem as less martyristic(?), but how many muslims are watching Fox News seriously anyways?

Also, does anyone know the specific Genesis of this term?

If any of you replies Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins, may your soul burn in eternal damnation! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with further villifying the attacker? I have a hard time not further villifying a guy who straps a bomb to himself then blows it up to kill as many people as possible.

However, CNN is still the king of these type of word games. For years, you were not allowed to say the word "foreign" on CNN (strict Ted Turner rule). It can be used now, but it is used rarely. You must say "international" whenever possible, even though that doesn't mean the same thing as foreign.

Also, CNN anchors cannot use the term "abortion clinic." You must say "women's clinic." There are probably a lot of others as well. All news organizations have their own PC standards.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is wrong with them? Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with further villifying the attacker? I have a hard time not further villifying a guy who straps a bomb to himself then blows it up to kill as many people as possible.

However, CNN is still the king of these type of word games. For years, you were not allowed to say the word "foreign" on CNN (strict Ted Turner rule). It can be used now, but it is used rarely. You must say "international" whenever possible, even though that doesn't mean the same thing as foreign.

Also, CNN anchors cannot use the term "abortion clinic." You must say "women's clinic." There are probably a lot of others as well. All news organizations have their own PC standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no problem with further vilifying the attacker, it's just moronic is all. It wuld be barely better than calling Dahmer a Deceased dead homicidal murderer. Well, that's stretching it a bit, as the redundancy is less the issue than the inaccuracy, but I digress.

The CNN foreign/international one sound pretty stupid to me too. I guess I can see a slight negative connotation to foreign though, although interneational could easily just be the better term in certain cases. If someone from the USA was reporting in IRaq and was called a foreign correspondant, he could either BE foreign, or be on foreign soil, or both. "international correspondant" tell you he handles international affiars, and leaves little to no connotation about the reporter himself other thn his job.

If a clinic ONLY handles abortions, it chould be called an abortion clinc. If it handles other procedures and checkups also, it is a health clinic. The fact that many have to go to ONLY being abortion clinics because of external pressure and saftey issues is a mitigating factor here though.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
The CNN foreign/international one sound pretty stupid to me too. I guess I can see a slight negative connotation to foreign though, although interneational could easily just be the better term in certain cases. If someone from the USA was reporting in IRaq and was called a foreign correspondant, he could either BE foreign, or be on foreign soil, or both. "international correspondant" tell you he handles international affiars, and leaves little to no connotation about the reporter himself other thn his job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I loved the CNN "foreign" ban during their sports coverage. I remember Nick Charles (former CNN sports anchor) talking about how "4 consecutive international golfers have won the Masters." What exactly is an "international golfer?" Isn't Tiger Woods or Tom Watson an international golfer? If they are not from the US, they should be called a "foreign player."

As far as the ban on "abortion clinic," I have a problem if a CNN journalist is covering a protest about abortion at a "women's clinic." The people are protesting abortion. If you refuse to mention the word abortion, it is not very accurate coverage.

[andyfox]

Homicide bomber, to me, is redundant. The distinction is between a bomber and a suicide bomber.

But each media outlet has its own peculiarities. The NYT style manual still insists all men are called Mr. ________. My favorite is when they refer to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Not necessarily redundant because the modifier "homicide" clearly differentiates between bombers who are trying to kill people, and bombers whose targets are mere inert objects (for instance, a bomber who targets an oil pipeline or other infrastructure).

B. One bomber in the news generally has committed multiple homicides, but only one suicide: so if a bomber kills ten people plus himself, does it not make at least some sense to accentuate the "homicide" part over the "suicide" part
(seeing as the ratio is weighted 10:1 homicide vs. suicide in the example given)?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"! If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Not necessarily redundant because the modifier "homicide" clearly differentiates between bombers who are trying to kill people, and bombers whose targets are mere inert objects (for instance, a bomber who targets an oil pipeline or other infrastructure).

B. One bomber in the news generally has committed multiple homicides, but only one suicide: so if a bomber kills ten people plus himself, does it not make at least some sense to accentuate the "homicide" part over the "suicide" part
(seeing as the ratio is weighted 10:1 homicide vs. suicide in the example given)?

[/ QUOTE ]

PArt A is true, but then, he's just a bobmer, but the intensifier here is that he kills hinself at the same time. I doubt Fox is using this term strictly to be more factually accurate.

To similar end, I LOVED it when GHWB pronounced his name "Saddem" instead of "Sadham", since "saddem" had some kind of negative meaning in Iraqi(?).

Should have read, Sadd-ahm for proper purposes, BTW, not Sadham.

[MMMMMM]

I agree it is doubtful that the reasons I gave are why Fox uses the term 'homicide bomber', but that term does make more sense in certain ways (though not in all ways).

I seem to recall "SAD-emm" was described as sort of a belittling term for someone who does menial work--perhaps a shoemaker or something like that.

And yeah I thought that was great too.

[elwoodblues]

Conservative Political Correctness at its finest.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
it does nothing for their journalistic credibility,

[/ QUOTE ] That's never really been a concern of theirs.

[ QUOTE ]
Is Fox News the only station to use this moronic term?

[/ QUOTE ] Of course.

I just did a search. First, a general websearch. All the hits appeared to be RW blogs. They all had the exact same article. Every one dutifully reprinting the same column.

Then, I did a search on Yahoo News, which of course searches multiple on line news sources. Every hit with the term was... FOX news.

[Greg J]

Yeah, being a "bomber" implies homicide. I have never heard of Tim McViegh or the IRA being homicide bombers.

The reason Fox does this is to remove the value of the life of the person commiting the act of suicide in the process of killing other people. While you may or may not agree with the sentiment, I think most people that value journalistic integrity would agree that this should not be the job of media.

[andyfox]

A. It's always redundant within the context of the story. Here's today's AP lead:

"A suicide car bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen and wounded 100 others Monday during morning roll call at a police headquarters in this oil-rich northern Kurdish city, the second such attack in as many days."

Since it says he killed 15 people, the word "homicide" would be redundant. Whereas the word "suicide" tells us something about how (and, to some extent, why) he did it.

B. But the key thing that distinguished this person from non-suicide bombers is that he was dedicated/crazy/deluded/fanatical enough to take his own life. A bomber who throws a bomb into a police station and runs away is a homicide bomber. (Yet we don't refer to him as a homicide bomber, usually, just a bomber. The story's lead line always says how many perished, so it's obvious he's a homicide bomber.) One who carries the bomb in himself, taking his own life in the process, is a suicide bomber. It's not obvious he's a suicide bomber unless we're told so.

[andyfox]

Not just the value of the bomber's life, but also the value of his ideas (such as they are).

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Not just the value of the bomber's life, but also the value of his ideas (such as they are).

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but I find the former more disturbing.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A. It's always redundant within the context of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't always redundant[/i]. It's often redundant, or usually redundant.

What about insurgents in Iraq who blew up part of an oil pipeline? There have been other bombings targeting infrastructure but not killing people. So "homicide" isn't always involved, so the term isn't always redundant.


[ QUOTE ]
Here's today's AP lead:

"A suicide car bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen and wounded 100 others Monday during morning roll call at a police headquarters in this oil-rich northern Kurdish city, the second such attack in as many days."

Since it says he killed 15 people, the word "homicide" would be redundant. Whereas the word "suicide" tells us something about how (and, to some extent, why) he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but just flip it Andy. Since it says he killed himself (suicide), the term homicide lets us know he killed others too. You're just assigning or attempting to validate an arbitrary preference for which information falls into the story title and which does not.

[ QUOTE ]
B. But the key thing that distinguished this person from non-suicide bombers is that he was dedicated/crazy/deluded/fanatical enough to take his own life.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the key that distinguishes him from someone blowing up an electrical transformer or an oil pipeline is that he targeted and killed other humans.

[ QUOTE ]
A bomber who throws a bomb into a police station and runs away is a homicide bomber. (Yet we don't refer to him as a homicide bomber, usually, just a bomber...

[/ QUOTE ]

Custom, Andy. As above, "non-homicide" bombers exist too.

[ QUOTE ]
The story's lead line always says how many perished, so it's obvious he's a homicide bomber.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it was arbitrary which information they chose to put in the story line, although I'll admit that when people are killed they generally put that in the story line.

[ QUOTE ]
One who carries the bomb in himself, taking his own life in the process, is a suicide bomber. It's not obvious he's a suicide bomber unless we're told so.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can be told in the story title or in the body of the story--or in both.

I'm not arguing the qualifier "suicide" isn't appropriate in many cases; I'm saying the qualifier "homicide" is also appropriate in many cases--and occasionally provides a critical distinction. And since the homicide factor generally outweighs the suicide factor, it is appropriate in that way too--sort of in a moral sense. If Iris were to lose every single hand of poker she ever plays from now on, and 10 years from now she cracked up on Christmas Eve at the Commerce, and blew herself up somehow while sitting at the table with her opponents, killing them all in the process--which is the greatest loss, morally speaking? Iris, or her eight opponents? Which deserves the greatest mention or emphasis in the headline, when it comes to tragedy or loss?

So in the moral sense I think "homicide bomber" is generally more fitting.

However, I'm NOT blanketly favoring the term "homicide bomber". Did you think I was?

All that said, I think the term "suicide bomber" may sometimes be more apt--but not always.

If you'll recall, the OP expressed the thought that the term "homicide bomber" was ludicrous and moronic. I'm simply showing that it is not ludicrous or moronic, and that there exist are valid arguments for using it. I'm NOT arguing that "homicide bomber" is always the better choice. Rather the entire purpose of my post was to point out flaws in the OP's initial take on it.

[andyfox]

"A suicide car bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen"

We know he committed homicide, it says he killed people. If it said "a homicide car bomber" we wouldn't know he also killed himself.

Plus there's something specific, something different, about a "suicide" bomber, as opposed to an "ordinary" bomber (what a horrible term, sorry). As there was something different about the Japanese Kamikaze bombers as opposed to "regular" bombers.

To me, the term suicide bomber imparts more information, at least in the vast majority of instances. Let's try the AP lead line three ways:

"A suicide car bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen"

"A homicide car bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen"

"A bomber wearing a police uniform killed at least 15 traffic policemen"

In this case, and I think in most cases, the suicide bomber imparts the most information. I don't think the term "homicide bomber" is ludicrous or moronic, nor am I implying that you did or that you blanketly favor the term.

Your Iris analogy (which I loved, BTW /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) gets to the heart of the point, I think. Fox is implicitly giving an editorial on the moral worth of the bomber vs. his victims, at the expense of giving more complete information.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
So in the moral sense I think "homicide bomber" is generally more fitting.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reporting the news the "moral sense" should not be paramount.

The writer is looking for a word to qualify what type of bomber is detonating bombs to cause damage to life and property, when the bomber is also committing suicide.

If I was to write a description it would be:

A suicide bomber blew herself up outside a police station killing 20 innocent bystanders.

-- or --


A suicide bomber drove up in a car loaded with explosives and detonated it at the gates of the Iraqi President's house. No one, except the bomber, was injured.

-- or --

A man in a car was seen throwing a bomb through the front windors of the discotheque killing 15 and injuring 20 dancers.

I cant think of a single cogent sentence where I, for one, would choose to use homicide bomber, because I dont think it reads well.

Again, when reporting the news, the moral sense is irrelevant.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, when reporting the news, the moral sense is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, why it is very relevent on Fox.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, you make a valid case that the term "suicide bomber" is most practical for imparting information in a story title.

My whole point (which I think you got) was that there exist valid reasons for using the term "homicide bomber" as well. In other words it isn't a moronic term;-)

[MMMMMM]

Hi ACPlayer,

Yes, the term "suicide bomber" usually reads better and helps a sentence be more compact.

However, when you break down the logical use of qualifying terms, "homicide bomber" also has validity (see prior explanation(s)), and perhaps even more validity given that:

1) not all bombers are homicide bombers

2) not all homicide bombers are suicide bombers

3) not all suicide bombers manage to kill others

Practically speaking however I will agree that "suicide bomber" is usually more convenient.

[ACPlayer]

Instead of all this verbiage, howabout pretending you are a reporter for a fictitious event and telling us how you would write it.

You remind me of a lawyer. Talking caveats.

I would happily acknowledge a good sentence. Got one?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of all this verbiage, howabout pretending you are a reporter for a fictitious event and telling us how you would write it.

You remind me of a lawyer. Talking caveats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that is how I tend to think--precisely, with everything compartmentalized, yet with the relationships of all parts clearly pictured in my mind's eye. So at times it is frustrating to debate with people who cannot hold a large picture, including relationships, clearly in their minds.

I do err, even with this technique, on occasion. But many others err routinely (I would imagine you can think of a few;-))


[ QUOTE ]
I would happily acknowledge a good sentence. Got one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if you wish, you may refer to an earlier post wherein I explained the reason I tackled this ball of wax in the first place.

[ACPlayer]

It is hard to wade through your posts looking for the real or imagined nuggets.

So, got a sentence?

Why don't we just call them terrorists?

[ACPlayer]

It would be preferable if the press did not refer to them as terrorists, as that too is an interpretation. If Fox refers to, say, a Palestinian Suicide Bomber as a terrorist, then it validates the imams reference to them as freedom fighters.

Suicide bomber is an accurate representation of the person who commits suicide by blowing himself up in the proximity of the enemy. Now, one party can call the suicide bomber a criminal and the other can call him a noble martyr, and life can go on.

The dispassionate observer (someone like me) can then correctly analyze the problem.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite is when they refer to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf."

[/ QUOTE ]

This line alone bumps this thread up to a four star rating.

[ripdog]

I think that FOX isists on using the term becasue it elicits the desired response from their target audience. Perhaps you feel insulted by the stupidity of it, as if FOX expects you to start crowing about what a no-good, dirty mother****er the bomber was. This is what I find insulting--that they attempt to appeal to emotions rather than just reporting the news. I can imagine the FOX faithful jawing at the TV screen in an almost Orwellian manner. Credibility doesn't seem to matter anymore anyway. Did anybody see MSNBC's interview of Ronald McDonald. That was as stupid as anything I've seen on FOX News.

[Gamblor]

I really have no problem with further vilifying the attacker, it's just moronic is all.

I think the only thing that makes it moronic is that the previously accepted term "suicide bomber" is so ingrained in the vernacular that anything else would appear moronic.

More importantly, "suicide" implies that the end goal of the operation is to commit suicide, whereas homicide bomber correctly communicates that the end goal of the operation is to in fact kill other people. The fact that the murderer also dies is only a necessary evil.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Fox News the only station to use this moronic term?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually FoxNews is a not a station, it's commonly referred to as a network.

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember a year or so ago someone mentioning that "suicide bombers" should be called "homocide bombers" because they are killing other people too, but I really thought no one would be stupid enough to actually call them this seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Ari Fleischer while serving as Bush's press secretary first used this term in 2002.

[ QUOTE ]
ANY bomber is at least ATTEMPTING to be a "homicide bomber", but most do not ACTUALLY KILL THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS, THUS THEY ARE A "SUICIDE BOMBER"!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually not all bombs are meant to kill people, some are merely meant to destroy property or whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
If a guy threw a bomb into a crowd, and was unharmed himself, he would THEN be a "homicide bomber", but that would be a bit of a redundant redundancy, wouldn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No see above. A redundant redundancy?

[ QUOTE ]
If this IS strictly a Fox News thing, it does nothing for their journalistic credibility, which is low anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not just a FoxNews "thing" see above. Low credibility among leftists you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Only slight reason I can think of for the usage of this term is to further vilify the attacker, and possibly make his act seem as less martyristic(?), but how many muslims are watching Fox News seriously anyways?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it doesn't seem to me that the attacker is villified all that often actually. Here's what IMO is fairly typical attitude of many regarding the tactic in question:

Suicide bombers might be fighting for legitimate political ends (establishment of a state) by decidedly illegitimate means (the murder of civilians or non-combatants). A "homicide bomber" is simply a criminal who wishes to kill outside of political goals. While it is possible under some circumstances to condone the violence of a "freedom fighter," this new term adds further distance between any legitimate concept or action and the abhorent actions of the homicide bombers.

IMO many associate the utilization of this tactic as shall we quasi legitimate in that they're oppressed people fighting for their freedom. And that in many cases is a ridiculous viewpoint on a couple of levels.

1) Many of these people are recruited in at young ages and for lack of a better term are sold a "bill of goods" in that they are unsophisticated politically.

2) There is a monetary aspect in that the relatives of those who perpetrate this savagery are paid a fee.


Calling people who are essentially paid to kill other people "homicide bombers" or "suicide bombers" doesn't seem to matter much ultimately and it seems like something only the left would get their "feathers ruffled" over.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
Suicide bombers might be fighting for legitimate political ends (establishment of a state) by decidedly illegitimate means (the murder of civilians or non-combatants). A "homicide bomber" is simply a criminal who wishes to kill outside of political goals. While it is possible under some circumstances to condone the violence of a "freedom fighter," this new term adds further distance between any legitimate concept or action and the abhorent actions of the homicide bombers.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it.

It can't be this difficult.

Suicide bomber = someone who blows themselves up, regardless the reason.

Homicide bomber = someone who commits a homicidal act using a bomb.

Arab suicide bombers in Israel are not trying to kill themselves. They are trying to kill Israelis, but as a byproduct of strong Israeli security are forced to kill themselves in the process.

I don't see how there can be any more discussion.

[andyfox]

Suicide doesn't imply anything; it simply states a fact: the bomber committed suicide. Read the lead line from the AP story I posted. If it says homicide bomber, we are missing information.

[andyfox]

"Suicide bomber = someone who blows themselves up, regardless the reason."

Wrong. If it were true, the headline would say so-and-so committed suicide. There's a difference between someone who kills themself and a suicide bomber.

Read the AP headline I posted elsewhere in this thread. Suicide bomber imparts more information than homicide bomber. Isn't that what a new organization should be attempting to do?

[lastchance]

Yeah... Common vernacular clearly suggests the use of "suicide bomber" to be more descriptive than "homicide bomber," especially if there were people who were killed by the bomb, one would imagine that to be in the headlines.

I can't believe I'm discussing this, but oh well, my 2 cents.

[andyfox]

"It would be preferable if the press did not refer to them as terrorists, as that too is an interpretation."

They're certainly terrorists in that they use terror as a tactic. They might also be freedom fighters, as the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

But neither imparts the information that suicide bomber does.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't we just call them terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that word doesn't tell you as much information as suicide bomber or even homicide bomber. It is also a conclusory term --- you might very well read suicide bomber and think terrorist. I would prefer if they report and I decide....now where have I heard that idea before...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Suicide doesn't imply anything; it simply states a fact: the bomber committed suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homicide doesn't imply anything; it simply states a fact: the bomber committed homicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the lead line from the AP story I posted. If it says homicide bomber, we are missing information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only due to convenience. A story title could easily read: "Homicide bomber kills 15 and himself".

Granted, you may argue that the story title: "Suicide bomber kills 15" is more efficient than the above (by saving two words). Yet it does not tell us if the suicide bomber was one of the 15 or if he would be counted as the 16th. So it is more compact by two words yet omits information the slightly longer alternative title does not omit.

The most compact way to correct this omission of information would be: "Suicide bomber kills 15 others". Now the information is complete but it saves only one word over the "homicide bomber" version.

There obviously exist arguments for either usage. I believe the arguments sum up as follows:

"Homicide Bomber" is somewhat more accurate, overall, in the purely conceptual sense; BUT "Suicide Bomber" helps compact a sentence better and is frequently adequately descriptive (because bombers who target only inanimate objects are less common today than their murderous counterparts).

Matter solved;-)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Suicide bomber = someone who blows themselves up, regardless the reason."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. If it were true, the headline would say so-and-so committed suicide. There's a difference between someone who kills themself and a suicide bomber.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, you are not considering that a suicide bomber could blow up an oil pipeline or transformer, killing himself in the process yet killing no others.

Granted that probably isn't very common, but from a purely conceptual standpoint (rather than a convenience of usage standpoint) your argument falls flat because "suicide bomber" does not imply homicide also--it's just that "homicide also" is the most common type. (For instance in WWII I would not be terribly surprised if there were some suicide bomers who merely blew up vital equipment or supplies behind enemy lines. At any rate it is a possibility and the term "suicide bomber" does not imply homicide. It may suggest homicide because that is the most common type today, but "to suggest" and "to imply" are two different things, conceptually speaking).

[ACPlayer]

Homicide bomber is an idiotic phrase coined by politicians to inflame the feelings of an emotional and scared populace.

You have fallen for the oldest trick in the politicians how to con the public book.

[JackWhite]

What about "insurgent." There really should be a less value netural term than that to describe someone who is a murdering terrorist.

[ACPlayer]

Not quite. A single suicide bomber does not equte to terrorism. It is the pattern of repeated bombings by a group or collection of group that makes it terrorism.

When a suicide bomber does his dirty deed in Tel Aviv, the reporting should certainly state that it was a suicide bomber, if a group claims credit, then report that, if the identity or affiliation of the bomber is known then report that. If a govt official claims that this is a part of some group effort to create terrorism, then report that claim. If they wish to offer some opinion about the motives of the bomber then do so on the op ed pages.

I thus prefer that news not be the one labelling the person as a terrorist but simply reporting the events.

[ACPlayer]

The suicide bombers operating in Iraq are more accurately part of an insurgent network than a terrorist network. Those in Israel are probably more accurately members of a terrorist network.


Describing the Iraqi insurgency as a terrorist operation is at best misleading.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Homicide bomber is an idiotic phrase coined by politicians to inflame the feelings of an emotional and scared populace.

You have fallen for the oldest trick in the politicians how to con the public book.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACPlayer, I am merely providing a dispassionate breakdown and analysis. Sorry if it went over your head.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry, 6M. Your analysis and the phrase were of the same ilk. The defense of the words Homicide bombers was tortured and twisted. You need to do better.

Just the fact that you would choose to defend this tortured phrase demonstrates the lack of dispassionate thinking about this aspect of world affairs.

The phrase is idiotic.

[andyfox]

Maybe we're arguing semantics, but I don't think it's a pattern of repeated events by a group that makes it terrorism. If it's a tactic used by an individual one time that we define as terror, then it's terrorism, and he/she's a terrorist.

[ACPlayer]

Well of course we are arguing semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semantics)/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If Joe walks into a theater and blow himself up, is he a terrorist? Maybe he is just nuts.

It becomes terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism), IMO, when there is a (usually) political motivation and the intent is to create a sense of unease in the population as means to achieving the political goals. I think by definition this means that it is not a one off but an organized group's tactic.

[MMMMMM]

If you can't follow the analysis, ACPlayer, don't blame me.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It becomes terrorism, IMO, when there is a (usually) political motivation and the intent is to create a sense of unease in the population as means to achieving the political goals. I think by definition this means that it is not a one off but an organized group's tactic

[/ QUOTE ]

So McVeigh and Nichols were part of an "organized group"?

If McVeigh acted alone it wouldn't have been terrorism?

You seem to be going off an a (mistaken) tangent here.

You think there have been suicide/homicide bombers in Israel who were acting alone AND not for political purposes, and therefore the news shouldn't initially call them terrorists (even though there has probably never been a suicide/homicide bomber in Israel who didn't blow themselves up as an act of terrorism and with terroristic intent)?

You are capable of thinking straight, ACPlayer, why don't you try it now, instead of trying to make descriptions fit an invented definition that appeals to your emotions.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we're arguing semantics, but I don't think it's a pattern of repeated events by a group that makes it terrorism. If it's a tactic used by an individual one time that we define as terror, then it's terrorism, and he/she's a terrorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your definition, the American government is the world's biggest terrorist organisation.