"homicide bombing" - What kind of assault on language is this? To start, this political renaming of suicide bombing is semantically wrong, obviously, and meant to shift attention from the perpetrator his/her victims (also obv). Fair enough, or part of larger project of Palestinian/Arab erasure (in all aspects of that word)?
Thing is, the political focus of that renaming is aimed at YOU, to close debate, to put those who try to think critically and clearly about Israel/Palestine in the position of (seemingly) defending the indefensible. We all know that "homicide" in this case now means "suicide*" *of a racist fanatic whose moral standing is nil and let's see you try to make a peep about any of this to the contrary.
Discuss.
(Kind of an old meme I know, but a coworker dropped this yesterday and its been in my craw since; how much of an issue it it UKside?)
― g.cannon (gcannon), Thursday, 9 January 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 9 January 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Thursday, 9 January 2003 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)
For example: "freedom fighters" become "terrorists", and thus, a great many legitimate organizations become grouped in with fundamentalist crazies into one big easily labelable bullshit amalgamation, suddenly freeing those bending the rhetoric from having to accept the validity of legit movements.
Or how easily someone who disagrees with Israel's brutal policies can be labeled "anti-Semite".
IMHO, it's because the majority of humans aren't interested in details, in the intricacies of existance, and would rather see things in the most simplistic fashion possible, even at the expense of actually knowing what the hell is really going on.
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 9 January 2003 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)
― Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 9 January 2003 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 10 January 2003 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)
There was an interesting thing I read somewhere which pointed out that remote terrorism - i.e. acts of terror where the participants could reasonably hope to escape with their lives - is a relatively recent development.
― Tom (Groke), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tom (Groke), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)
Suddenly those No Bombing signs take on a sinister undertone. You'll be telling me that the No Petting signs meant I can't take my Pushme Pullyu into a pool next.
Of course the word bombing itself has been nullified by the idea of strategic bombing, and the US bombing campaigns in Iraq, Kosovo where the aim - as put forward by the publicity is not to kill people at all. Instead the loud bangs are supposed to scare them into surrendering. After all the idea that when you drop a bomb on a city lots of innocent people die (and we know they are innocent because they have a nasty despotic leader that we have to liberate them from) runs counter to what a nice Westernised democracy would do.
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)
― dave q, Friday, 10 January 2003 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)
― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Friday, 10 January 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pete (Pete), Friday, 10 January 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)
(umm I don't even know if T, N, et al have switched their terminology from su to hom so maybe not)
― g.cannon (gcannon), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dave Fischer, Friday, 10 January 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dave Fischer, Friday, 10 January 2003 22:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 10 January 2003 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)