Who's disputing "the fact" that the suicide bombers have homicidal intent (and results)? But you honestly say that youi can't see the ideology in using an expression introduced on the right with the more or less transparent implication that anyone who uses the term suicide bomber is a terr-symp who identifies with their aims and endorses their means? It's a hallmark of ideology to use truths in a partial and limited way to uphold the existing order. In fact that is THE hallmark of ideology, as opposed to the use of simple lies like calling the contras freedom fighters. That is mere propaganda. If someone wanted to actually endorse the suicide bombers, he'd be more likely to call them what they call themselves, martyrs. By using the term homicide bomber (as if there were another kind), you play into the hands of those who want a Manichean division between evil-doers (terrorists, official enemies, Palestinians, Saddam Hussein, the French, worthy targets for mass non-suicide bombing, those deserving of having their shops and homes bulldozed and their land taken) and the forces of good (the US govt). I know you want Saddam's head on the 82 Airborne's stick, but have you gone the rest of the way?
jks
--- Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> > But, moreover, using certain
> > vocabulary comes with a certain ideological
> apparatus.
> > If I referred, in the old days, to the "captive
> > nations," you'd think I was a right wing cold
> warrior.
> > jks
>
> I can see a distinction being made if, say, we were
> talking about a contra
> army being called "freedom fighters." That's an
> ideological tag. The
> homicide/suicide bombers are committing homicide and
> suicide. That's a fact.
> You can hail it or condemn it, but the fact remains.
>
> DP
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com