What Kind of Bombing Was That?
So last week the Bush White House got on board with a growing trend I’ve noticed over the past few weeks — referring to what we used to call suicide bombings as “homicide bombings”. I can only assume that the goal here is to make these horrific attacks seem more horrific by using what the knuckleheads who want to change the terminology feel is a more powerful or evocative description.
Whoops, I’ve already given myself away. I think that this proposed change in terminology is utterly and completely moronic, for the simple reason that “homicide bombing” is less specific than “suicide bombing.” Homicide bombing must refer to any sort of bombing designed to kill innocent people. That might include everything from a car bomb in Northern Ireland to the firebombing of Dresden during World War II. Suicide bombing, on the other hand, refers to bomb attacks where the attacker intentionally blows themself up in the process.
If you ask me, there’s nothing more unsettling than the idea that some person believes that blowing up others is so important that they willingly give their life in the process, and indeed, by design. That’s a sort of nihilism and fervor that I’m not really prepared to deal with psychologically. Even worse is the fact that some people seem to believe that intentionally making murder your last living act is somehow an honorable or noble deed.
Aren’t the people who refuse to use the term “suicide bomber” tacitly agreeing to the agenda of the pro-suicide bombing crowd by refusing to use the term as though it somehow indicates that a suicide bomber is a good thing to be? I honestly can’t think of a more pathetic trivialization of life than the commission of a suicide bombing, and yet there are people who don’t think this term is awful enough to fit the situation. Fools, I say.