Suicide bombers

[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

[BluffTHIS!]

I am not a FOX network spokesman and thus whatever they do has nothing to do with what I said. And you are not considering the fact that just because the term "suicide bomber" was the first one used, that it was not in fact coined for propaganda reasons itself. You acknowledge that they take the lives of civilians and thus it is murder, but then object to the term "homicide bomber". This can only be because you have your own political axe to grind and use euphemisms to do so.

But hey, there's a way around this that avoids using either of these terms. Just call them terrorists.

[ 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?

I mean to suggest that citizens are also agents of the state. I don't see why and elected official is more accountable than those who voted for him and continue to support him.

[xniNja]

To me there's not much difference between a suicide bomber, a kamikaze pilot, dropping a bomb, or a soldier on a one-way mission. One could fathomably argue only one uniquely targets civilians, but I'd remind them that it isn't true.

Also, according to the articles I've read in major newspapers or from major sources (NY Times, Reuter's, AP) the average suicide bomber (and I believe that is the term they used) was, in fact, educated and financially secure.

[ QUOTE ]
And the appropriate term is "homicide-bombers".

[/ QUOTE ]What would you can someone who commits homicide with a bomb but who doe snot take his life in the process?

I don't think suicide-bomber is meant to soften, rather to accurately describe someone who commits suicide in the course of bombing.

[andyfox]

"Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Homicide Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Suicide Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Terrorist Kills 14 in Market"

Which imparts more or better information?

[ QUOTE ]
"Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Homicide Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Suicide Bomber Kills 14 in Market"

"Terrorist Kills 14 in Market"

Which imparts more or better information?

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly!

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a FOX network spokesman and thus whatever they do has nothing to do with what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are all for using their propaganda and are subsequently are defending it.

[ QUOTE ]

And you are not considering the fact that just because the term "suicide bomber" was the first one used, that it was not in fact coined for propaganda reasons itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how a descriptive term like "Suicide Bomber" can be used as propaganda.

[ QUOTE ]

You acknowledge that they take the lives of civilians and thus it is murder, but then object to the term "homicide bomber".

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated my reasons for objection, and both terms imply they kill innocent civilians, "homicide bomber" only serves to 'dumb down' the people by spoonfeeding them a message behind the news.

[ QUOTE ]

This can only be because you have your own political axe to grind and use euphemisms to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly are showing your political affiliations through advocating that term and furthermore saying "Suicide Bomber" is a euphemism, despite it being around for years and gives an adequate description.

This is why it's not about left-wing/right-wing, pro-bush/anti-bush, pro-war/anti-war.

The war being fought is an information one to control perception.

When the media stops becoming an impartial bystander merely reporting events for the viewer to make up their own minds, then suddenly the media becomes a very dangerous tool on an unsuspecting public who don't see what is going on.

The most dangerous thing in this world is your fellow humans, and what they believe, like "terrorists" for example.

You will not disagree that terrorists are dangrous because of the beliefs they have been spoonfed by their peers throughout their life, which is why these young men choose to die for a cause that was programmed into them.

But on the other hand, if the media gets away with brainwashing it's citizens through methods like above, then themselves and (even worse) their children watching that TV are suffering the same fate as that terrorist - programming from a seemingly "trusted" source.

Children can't take the 'negotiated view' as the sociologist would say, and most adults if they are exposed to enough programming will eventually subside in their criticisms.

And that's dangerous because not only is it an injustice to western democracy to purposely instill a belief in your citizens that they didn't ask for, but it shows just how much the person who does this thinks of their viewers/public, nothing but 'white pawns' (western citizens) in a larger chess game to counter the 'black pawns'. (terrorist sympathizers - ie Arab World)

The Media has a tremendous amount of power and free information and free thought are such precious concepts that people have died for over the years in many countries.

There are certain things not easily regulated (like the programming parents give to their children in their own homes) but mass-media messages must be monitored and regulated to detect partiality.

I strongly urge you to watch "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" and think about this not on a 'surface level' but a little deeper, then you'll see why it's so important.

[ QUOTE ]

But hey, there's a way around this that avoids using either of these terms. Just call them terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The term is just a marionette, the puppeteers' motive is the message.

Cheers,
SDM