Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Addison
There are a couple of reasons it bugs me (though I confess it doesn't bug me often, I haven't thought about it in a couple of years). The first is that, as I said earlier, it is less accurate, or at least less descriptive, than "Suicide Bomber". They have taken a perfectly good descriptor and changed it to give less information. "Suicide Bomber" is someone who is a) a bomber, and b) commits suicide in the act of bombing. It descibes a specific kind of bomber. Homicide bomber, on the other hand, does not. It can describe Tim McVeigh just as well as a guy who walks into an Israeli club with a belt full of dynamite. I would say that it is less accurate. It is also forced and contrived.
And that is the other reason I dislike it. If they didn't want to use the term "Suicide Bomber", they could just use "Bomber", a perfectly fine term. Instead, they use the contrived term, in order to make a point. They cross over from delivering news to making commentary. I don't like it when Liberals do this, and I don't like it when Conservatives do this.
|
Understood and you make a good point; however, I like homicide bomber better because it's a term that focuses on the victims rather than the perpetrator.
"Bomber" would probably be the best term, but I can't help but like that calling the perps a homicide bomber really gets under the skin of the left. Too funny.