MSOC, yesterday entered a musing on her blog (My Left Wing) and on theBook, concerning the nature of the rhetorical claims--differences and distinctions--made by identifying someone as a "suicide" bomber, v. a "homicide" bomber.
One difference, imhe--is "moral."
Remember that, inside the structure of military rhetoric, a 'suicide mission' occupies a place of honor: to sacrifice one's life for the cause is regarded as noble, by the partisans of 'war.' Think of the Alamo, or the 300...
A suicide bomber partakes in some of the "Lost Cause" nobility.
Whereas a "homicide" bomber may (must?) be regarded merely as a murderous psychopath. There is no chance that the act could be thought "noble." A "homicide" bomber cannot be a martyr...
Calling them 'homicide bombers' is a conscious effort to defuse the heroic, sacrificial aspect of such attacks.
Remember the crap Bill Maher caught for his remark that flying a jet plane into a sky-scraper, whatever else you want to call it, is not an act of an individual 'coward.'
It is precisely that 'secret' admiration that the appellation "homicide" bomber is designed to dispel...
What about remote control bombers? The only degree difference between some looney setting a time bomb and our predator drones is the level of technology.
ReplyDeleteHow about another curmudgeons meeting on the 16th 3pm at Spins?