I completely agree. The reason that suicide bombing is so successfully devastating is that the bombers have no regard for their own lives. While I find this mentality insane, it shows that people who have no regard for their own welfare can have an immensely powerful affect on those around them. I believe that the Bush administration and Fox News want to diminish the rhetorical impact that these selfless (though insane and destructive) people have.
A "suicide bomber" commits a terrible act while sacrificing oneself, whereas a "homicide bomber" commits no sacrifice. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy if you don't have to see that they also sacrifice their lives for what they believe. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self sacrificial act because we tend to think of self sacrifice as noble.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
Or even:
"God so loved the world that he sacrificed his only Son."
Self sacrifice implies something done for a greater good. Suicide implies self sacrifice. Do you see the implication? Neocons want to take away the rhetorical power of suicide bomber's self sacrifice; therefore the suicide bomber must become a homicide bomber.
Bombers sometimes strike at objects rather than persons, so if it is certain that the target was the bus occupants rather than the bus itself, "homocide bomber" would seem more appropriate. "Suicide bombers" could place themselves on empty busses, in empty churches, on vacant street corners ... and in so doing get much less attention and create much less fear. The goal appears to be to create terror by the killing of others, not by killing one's self. As "suicide bomber" seems to have been a self-selected name by those praising such activity, I am of the opinion that it should not be used, as a way of not encouraging such mis-behavior. "Anti-humans bomber" is too much of a mouthful, "terrorist bomber" too broad, "murderous bomber" almost redundant, ... homicide bomber. Especially since it seems that those who encourage such activity don't like the term.
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
The problem is that suicide is not the point of the excercise- killing other people is. Killing other people is homicide, if not murder, therefore, 'homicide bombing' is an accurate description of the act, albeit an unsatisfactory one.
I am open to suggestions on what an appropriate term would be, but whatever it is should refer to the death of the people killed when the 'suicide' happened.
Once again, consistency is important in protecting journalistic neutrality. It is not necessary that the journalist invent a term that compactly describes the intent of the bomber. If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy. The journalist should use a term which describes how it happened. The word suicide applies whenever a person knowingly kills themselves, regardless of if it their primary goal. Thus, 'suicide' bomber accurately explains how it happened. The motives are important enough to explain in other sentences, and not lump into one adjective. Ask yourself what you are trying to avoid with the term 'homocide bomber'. The word 'suicide' is not value neutral, but what value it takes depends on your world-view. Most Western Jews and Christian sees the 'suicide' in 'suicide bomber' as just highlighting the fanaticism involved. Many Muslims see the 'suicide' as heightening the sacrifice. You will not change their views either way by making up some ad hoc term that is less specific to the act.
In that some may see the phrase "suicide bomber" as having some heightened sacrifice (killing one's self as well as others), the term is, well, not "journalisticly neutral". It's favoring more of this behavior, by appealing to those who think of these acts in an approving fashion. While both desire and need to sell papers and TV commercials is obvious, reporter will find their lives safer if such behavior is discouraged.
I am, obviously, trying to minimize any glory that might attach to such a deed. If he were to sit on the corner, sprinkle himself with gasoline, and then set fire to himself, he gets to be called a "suicial protestor". Blowing up others as well as himself gets him called "cowardly, homicidal bomber" by me -- wanting to be a murderer but not face the consequences therefore.
nb. I have seen "homicidal driver" before, as well as "homicidal biker". Doubtless there are others. Google's your friend.
The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above, while perhaps rejected by your small philosophy, are well understood by most people. Telling a parent that they are not actually sacrificing anything to bring up their child because they value their child more than they value material goods might score you points in a masterbatory philosophy classroom, but I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents. Similarly, just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept.
A long time ago I decided that Ayn Rand and her philosophy of greed and superiority were not worth my time. Since then, I have successfully managed to tell every objectivist that approaches me, full of this stupid rhetoric, to go fuck themselves and come back to me when they are finished with that objectivist crap. I'll make the same comment to you.
ergo sum, people like you enjoy hearing themselves talk. Then when disagreed with, you and yours insult the mental processes of the person you are preaching to. Clearly if someone has a different subjective perspective they just can’t understand your “truth” and this means that they must be stupid or lazy. I have seen this with your Ayn Rand cult before. Disrespect for others opinions and a sense that you are superior are hallmarks of your little philosophy.
You are missing the whole point of this discussion for the sake of telling us that there is no such thing as voluntary sacrifice, and that the whole idea of sacrifice is an error or evil.
How are you adding to the dialog of suicide/homicide bombers?
13 comments:
I completely agree. The reason that suicide bombing is so successfully devastating is that the bombers have no regard for their own lives. While I find this mentality insane, it shows that people who have no regard for their own welfare can have an immensely powerful affect on those around them. I believe that the Bush administration and Fox News want to diminish the rhetorical impact that these selfless (though insane and destructive) people have.
A "suicide bomber" commits a terrible act while sacrificing oneself, whereas a "homicide bomber" commits no sacrifice. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy if you don't have to see that they also sacrifice their lives for what they believe. It is easier to dehumanize your enemy when your enemy does not commit any self sacrificial act because we tend to think of self sacrifice as noble.
"She sacrificed so many things so that her children could go to college."
"He sacrificed his summer to build homes for the homeless."
Or even:
"God so loved the world that he sacrificed his only Son."
Self sacrifice implies something done for a greater good. Suicide implies self sacrifice. Do you see the implication? Neocons want to take away the rhetorical power of suicide bomber's self sacrifice; therefore the suicide bomber must become a homicide bomber.
I agre with you, JayBee.
Much more succinct than what I said.
Christian
Except that the "homocide" part is already contained in "bomber." Mind actually rebutting points made in the post?
Bombers sometimes strike at objects rather than persons, so if it is certain that the target was the bus occupants rather than the bus itself, "homocide bomber" would seem more appropriate. "Suicide bombers" could place themselves on empty busses, in empty churches, on vacant street corners ... and in so doing get much less attention and create much less fear. The goal appears to be to create terror by the killing of others, not by killing one's self. As "suicide bomber" seems to have been a self-selected name by those praising such activity, I am of the opinion that it should not be used, as a way of not encouraging such mis-behavior. "Anti-humans bomber" is too much of a mouthful, "terrorist bomber" too broad, "murderous bomber" almost redundant, ... homicide bomber. Especially since it seems that those who encourage such activity don't like the term.
No shit.
Captain Carnage, your statement is in fact wrong. You say:
the bomber boarded a bus, saw there were only 4 people aboard, and disembarked. If he was a suicide bomber, the number of people he took with him would be irrelevant.
Your syllogism (philosophical term for an “if A then B” causal statement) is in error.
Your statement is: If he was a suicide bomber then the number he killed would not matter to him.
There is no basis for this statement whatsoever. Where are you getting your definition of "suicide bomber" ???
Suicide Bomber: a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb or committing a terrorist act.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
If one did not care about killing other people one would be committing "suicide " not "suicide bombing".
The problem is that suicide is not the point of the excercise- killing other people is. Killing other people is homicide, if not murder, therefore, 'homicide bombing' is an accurate description of the act, albeit an unsatisfactory one.
I am open to suggestions on what an appropriate term would be, but whatever it is should refer to the death of the people killed when the 'suicide' happened.
Once again, consistency is important in protecting journalistic neutrality. It is not necessary that the journalist invent a term that compactly describes the intent of the bomber. If there are other terms used by reporters that follow this format in other contexts, please list them. Further, if the journalist uses this format of the intention in the adjective, she should use that style consistently. Using the format "homocide stabber" "homocide driver" "homocide strangler" is just goofy.
The journalist should use a term which describes how it happened. The word suicide applies whenever a person knowingly kills themselves, regardless of if it their primary goal. Thus, 'suicide' bomber accurately explains how it happened. The motives are important enough to explain in other sentences, and not lump into one adjective.
Ask yourself what you are trying to avoid with the term 'homocide bomber'. The word 'suicide' is not value neutral, but what value it takes depends on your world-view. Most Western Jews and Christian sees the 'suicide' in 'suicide bomber' as just highlighting the fanaticism involved. Many Muslims see the 'suicide' as heightening the sacrifice. You will not change their views either way by making up some ad hoc term that is less specific to the act.
In that some may see the phrase "suicide bomber" as having some heightened sacrifice (killing one's self as well as others), the term is, well, not "journalisticly neutral". It's favoring more of this behavior, by appealing to those who think of these acts in an approving fashion. While both desire and need to sell papers and TV commercials is obvious, reporter will find their lives safer if such behavior is discouraged.
I am, obviously, trying to minimize any glory that might attach to such a deed. If he were to sit on the corner, sprinkle himself with gasoline, and then set fire to himself, he gets to be called a "suicial protestor". Blowing up others as well as himself gets him called "cowardly, homicidal bomber" by me -- wanting to be a murderer but not face the consequences therefore.
nb. I have seen "homicidal driver" before, as well as "homicidal biker". Doubtless there are others. Google's your friend.
Thank you for your comments. I have created a new post summarizing the arguments, for and against.
Homicide Bomber Summary Link
The concepts of sacrifice I mentioned above, while perhaps rejected by your small philosophy, are well understood by most people. Telling a parent that they are not actually sacrificing anything to bring up their child because they value their child more than they value material goods might score you points in a masterbatory philosophy classroom, but I doubt your words would resonate with many real world parents. Similarly, just because you do not see actions in terms of sacrifice does not mean that sacrifice is not a widely understood and accepted concept.
A long time ago I decided that Ayn Rand and her philosophy of greed and superiority were not worth my time. Since then, I have successfully managed to tell every objectivist that approaches me, full of this stupid rhetoric, to go fuck themselves and come back to me when they are finished with that objectivist crap. I'll make the same comment to you.
ergo sum, people like you enjoy hearing themselves talk. Then when disagreed with, you and yours insult the mental processes of the person you are preaching to. Clearly if someone has a different subjective perspective they just can’t understand your “truth” and this means that they must be stupid or lazy. I have seen this with your Ayn Rand cult before. Disrespect for others opinions and a sense that you are superior are hallmarks of your little philosophy.
You are missing the whole point of this discussion for the sake of telling us that there is no such thing as voluntary sacrifice, and that the whole idea of sacrifice is an error or evil.
How are you adding to the dialog of suicide/homicide bombers?
Post a Comment