Their reasons are, I suppose, political. I don't know if they think that calling someone a suicide bomber evokes some sort of sympathy for them or dimishes the deaths and injuries of the victims. Whatever. The problem that I have is that "homicide bomber" is not a good description of what happened.
Anyone with a bomb can be a "homicide bomber," even if they detonate the bomb remotely from a few blocks away or halfway around the world. "Homicide bomber" just tells me that said bomber killed people with the bomb. The term "suicide bomber" tells me that the bomber intentionally blew him/herself up in the process of killing others.
Fox would have been better off to simply say "bomber." Actually, given their "fair and balanced" editorial policy, they could have just gone with "evil doer," "terrorist," "Islamofacist," or combine them all as"evil terrorist Islamofacist." Somehow, though, they need to capture the idea that the bomber is also dead. Here are some suggestions:
- A bomber who killed some people, and, oh yeah, is kinda dead too.
- An exploding bomber
- A "self-centered" bomber
- A now-facing-the-terrible-wrath-of-the-Christian-God-and-burning-in-a-lake-of-fire bomber
Any other suggestions?
--Tinfoil Out
2 comments:
Does that mean a interrogator trained in torture techniques is actually an "enhancement specialist"? It makes it sound like the Fab Five from _Queer Eye_ are going to come over and wring the truth out of them using facial scrubs and flattering fabrics.
Taking "suicide" out and replacing with 'homicide" separates the bomber's death from the event and simplifies the observer's view. it allows the bombers to be uncomplicated killers, acting alone, disorganized, etc. I don't think "suicide bomber" evokes sympathy, but it does provoke more thought than "killer" or "terrorist". In this case there's also a tendency -- on all sides and for different reasons -- to associate "suicide" with "martyrdom". that's powerful language, whereas a "homicidal" person is just a murderer. By removing the language traditionally assigned by "their side" Fox et al probably want to reclaim and reclassify the act for anyone in earshot. Makes a twisted sort of sense, but it's not exactly subtle manipulation...
Post a Comment