Suicide bombers

[DougShrapnel]

From Sklansky's James Wood post
[ QUOTE ]
Upon reading that I realized James was right. At least as far as the several dozen bad people I knew. And clearly he is right about suicide bombers. Else why would they give up their lives? Surely not just for the 72 virgins. They must have felt that what they were doing was morally right. And that includes the 911 hijackers. (I often think we would have a better chance in the mid east if we would acknowledge this fact rather than simply call them evil criminals. But that is for another thread.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What type of people are these suicide bombers? Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are. They are normally well educated. And well off. Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers. This is not a secret yet from how often it is acknowledged you would think it was. Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[m1illion]

Misguided, mentally deranged, too stupid to know better.
Although evil is a possibility, the above is more likely.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Misguided, mentally deranged, too stupid to know better.
Although evil is a possibility, the above is more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. If those persons who do those things really think they need to use violence and are morally justified in doing so, then the appropriate targets of that violence are soldiers or individual political leaders, not random civilians.

And the appropriate term is "homicide-bombers".

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

And the appropriate term is "homicide-bombers".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this term and do not think it should be encouraged. (Although FOX News would disagree with me)

The term "Suicide-Bomber" to me clearly implies someone using themselves as a bomb in the middle of a crowded area to inflict potentially fatal harm upon those arround them.

Or as dictionary.com says

[ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: suicide bomber
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb or commiting a terrorist act

[/ QUOTE ]

All the term "Homicide-Bomber" does is try to make the term more threatning to justify the "War or Terror".

This is the same bullshit as the term "Sharpshooter" in replace of the word "Sniper".

So let me get this straight ...

US Army shoots somebody in the head from 300 ft = Sharpshooter (implies 'good shot, best at what he does')

Anyone else shoots anybody else in the head from 300 ft = Sniper (implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)

?

It's funny how the "Wasington Sniper" wasn't called the "Washington Shapshooter" by FOX News.

I highly suggest everybody views the documentary "Orwell rolls in his grave" to fully grasp this subject of terminology and the way words are used in manipulation.

Cheers,
SDM

[BluffTHIS!]

Although your comments about sniper vs sharpshooter are correct in pointing out that this is a semantic topic used for propaganda purposes, you have it mixed up regarding homicide bombers. The term "suicide bomber" is favored by those who specifically believe that the people doing this must be operating from a noble basis since they are willing to give their own lives in the process. This however is an example of the informal logical fallacy and rhetorical method of begging the question. The basis for judging whether such acts are morally justified and thus should have a more benovolent term applied to them are firstly, whether their overall cause is just and to what degree. Secondly, whether the means used are proportionate to situation, which means not just the overall level of violence used but also those against whom it is used.

Regarding the overall cause in the case of the Palestinians versus Israel, no objective person would conclude that either side is 100% correct. Plus even if the Palestinians are assumed to be the aggrieved party to the greater degree, the question is do the perceived injustices they suffer require violence in the first place, and secondly is that violence appropriately targreted at civilians?

If you evaluate the situation under the above framework, then I think it is impossible to conclude that blowing up civilians is morally permissible, unless you believe the end always justifies whatever means are used to accomplish it. If you do believe that, then you are not really able to make moral judgements at all, and will have only contributed to an escalating cycle of violence. And thus, if blowing up civilians is not in fact morally legitimate, then it constitutes murder, regardless of whether the murderer killed himself in the process. Therefore the term "homicide bomber" is correct.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
The term "suicide bomber" is favored by those who specifically believe that the people doing this must be operating from a noble basis since they are willing to give their own lives in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the term is accurate because the people doing this and supporters of it do believe it is noble, yet everybody else in their right mind knows murder is wrong, and all dictionary definitions act infavorably towards the term.

Everybody knows suicide bombers take the lives of innocent civilians in their act, the revision of the term is exactly like the 'sharpshooter/sniper' issue, except in this case it is perhaps more insulting to the public in that they have taken an already obvious term but decided to 'drive the point home a little harder' with the new 'homicide' word.

Furthermore, Any news network that would use 'Sharpshooter' and then 'Homicide-Bomber', and any other term they want to re-invent to convey their message loses all credibility with me, and all the re-invented terms they used have no credibility also.

Therefore, in an effort to retain as much dignity and intelligence as possible, "Suicide-Bomber" has and always will be the only term used to describe these people I will recognize, dismissing "Homicide-Bomber" as nothing more than foolish propaganda that gives those who already hate the US another reason. (unfortunately)

Cheers,
SDM

[Jim T]

While I much prefer the term "suicide bomber", the rest of your post is pretty much garbage.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same bullshit as the term "Sharpshooter" in replace of the word "Sniper".

So let me get this straight ...

US Army shoots somebody in the head from 300 ft = Sharpshooter (implies 'good shot, best at what he does')

Anyone else shoots anybody else in the head from 300 ft = Sniper (implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)

?

It's funny how the "Wasington Sniper" wasn't called the "Washington Shapshooter" by FOX News.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so ill-informed, that I'll probably miss a few of the multitude of blatant errors, but here goes:

1. "Sharpshooter" was the first term, not "sniper".

etymology dictionary

Where has "sharpshooter" been inappropriately used?

2. The word sniper "implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)" as opposed to the US Army's sharpshooters which imply "good shot"??

Strange. That must mean that the US Army must be intentionally training a bunch of "cowardly threats to society" at it's Army Sniper School

3. Also passing strange that they would design rifles especially for these "cowardly threats to society" and actually call them "sniper rifles" .

4. What is it with your absurd fascination with Fox? All the media used the term "sniper" rather than "sharpshooter". For example, searching CNN for "sniper Malvo" gives 220 hits. Searching CNN for "sharpshooter Malvo" gives 0 hits.

5. The reason that the word "sniper" was used by everyone rather than "sharpshooter" is because that is the more precise term. Hmm, the very reason you claim to prefer "suicide bomber". If you knew what the words REALLY meant, instead of your invented definitions, maybe you wouldn't be so confused.

A "sharpshooter" is merely "a good marksman", while a "sniper" [shoots] "at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage"

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
While I much prefer the term "suicide bomber", the rest of your post is pretty much garbage.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same bullshit as the term "Sharpshooter" in replace of the word "Sniper".

So let me get this straight ...

US Army shoots somebody in the head from 300 ft = Sharpshooter (implies 'good shot, best at what he does')

Anyone else shoots anybody else in the head from 300 ft = Sniper (implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)

?

It's funny how the "Wasington Sniper" wasn't called the "Washington Shapshooter" by FOX News.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so ill-informed, that I'll probably miss a few of the multitude of blatant errors, but here goes:

1. "Sharpshooter" was the first term, not "sniper".

etymology dictionary

Where has "sharpshooter" been inappropriately used?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I never claimed Sharpshooter didn't came first, "sniper" has always been the accepted term or usage.

One must question why FOX News has decided to dig up an archaic word like "Sharpshooter" in replace of the well-established "Sniper" especially in these times and considering the affiliations the newtork has.

Hmm.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The word sniper "implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)" as opposed to the US Army's sharpshooters which imply "good shot"??

Strange. That must mean that the US Army must be intentionally training a bunch of "cowardly threats to society" at it's Army Sniper School

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if in time this school will be rebranded "Sharpshooter School"?

Or is generally regarded that they only have to change terms to suit idiots that watch FOX News?

[ QUOTE ]

3. Also passing strange that they would design rifles especially for these "cowardly threats to society" and actually call them "sniper rifles" .

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you helping my case or your own?

Just another example of the word "sniper" being established for this craft, yet that word is 'anathema' when it is applied to US Army snipers on FOX News, but ok for any terrorists et al?

Strange.

[ QUOTE ]

4. What is it with your absurd fascination with Fox? All the media used the term "sniper" rather than "sharpshooter". For example, searching CNN for "sniper Malvo" gives 220 hits. Searching CNN for "sharpshooter Malvo" gives 0 hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all the media do use the correct term "sniper" except FOX.

I take it you know nothing about FOX News' practices and affiliations which is why on a 'surface' level to you it looks absurd, but if you dig a little deeper you'll see it's not.

Ofcourse I know you haven't seen the documentary "Orwell rolls in his grave" and thus you don't understand. (Outfoxed is another one, but Orwell is more intelligent)

[ QUOTE ]

5. The reason that the word "sniper" was used by everyone rather than "sharpshooter" is because that is the more precise term. Hmm, the very reason you claim to prefer "suicide bomber". If you knew what the words REALLY meant, instead of your invented definitions, maybe you wouldn't be so confused.

A "sharpshooter" is merely "a good marksman", while a "sniper" [shoots] "at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage"

[/ QUOTE ]

My friend, you are the one who seems to be confused.

A "bad marksman" cannot hit the target from a concealed vantage point (usually from in or on tall buildings, or mountainous terrain etc)

Thus 'snipers' are 'sharpshooters', but the term sharpshooter tries to hide the negative aspect of sniping. (It is not considered an incredibly 'noble' job - "assassinating" your enemy without meeting him face to face in battle etc)

Cheers,
SDM

[ QUOTE ]
If those persons who do those things really think they need to use violence and are morally justified in doing so, then the appropriate targets of that violence are soldiers or individual political leaders, not random civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]Why?

[BluffTHIS!]

I did not mean to imply that the cause expoused by homicide bombers is right and thus that they are justified in fact in killing soldiers or political leaders if that is your question. I only meant that if they were morally justified in using violence against an enemy, then the only appropriate targets are the agents of that state. Or does your question imply that you believe it justifiable to target civilians?