Well, they are, in fact, suicide bombers. So that is their right name. But you wanna be complete as well as correct, they are suicide-homicide bombers. The argument against merely "homicide bombers," apart from the fact that it's ideological, is that it's redundant. What do you think they are doing with those bombs? all bombers, except the old Weathermen (who tried to limit their bombing to property) are homicide bombers. You gonna call the US pilots who blast Baghdad homicide bombers btw? And you have my apologies, I thought you did want Saddam's head on the 82d Airborne's stick. Maybe that was Peter K. A danger of contrarian attitudes is that it's natural toa ssume that you must have the geberal right wing agenda if you adopt their vocab. I catch this when I advocate efficiency and markets myself. jks
--- Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> > jks
>
> I can see the ideological attempt at a squeeze,
> sure, but that doesn't mean
> I'm gonna comply by insisting, with a huff and a
> puff, that I'll only refer
> to those who blow up pizzerias and commuter busses
> as strictly "suicidal."
> To do so not only abuses the truth, it also conforms
> to the very tactic you
> say you're resisting.
>
> I must say this attempt at hair-splitting a word
> that is very
> straightforward and accurate shows how easily the
> left is yanked around by
> the right. Whatever happened with calling something
> by its right name,
> regardless of how it's used by one's enemies?
>
> DP
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com