More Suicide attacks today. Another young female...

About what?

Makes me think that the President is dancing with terrorists.

Makes me think Powell has no business going there.

Makes me think that Isreal is right for retaliating.

Makes me think that the first Senator who stands up and says they support Isreal will be our next President.

Makes me think the only one who can bring peace truly might be the Antichrist.

Fox News was calling it a "homicide bombing."

Paging Mr. Orwell....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were simply quoting the new line from the White House. It certainly fits the act better than "suicide bomber".

Makes me think kronos is right on every count.

That's because this is exactly what it is. Suicide bombing gives too much respect to the murderous degenerate wearing the belt.

Powell has tentatively rescheduled his meeting with the terrorist for Sunday btw.

Even Ghandi knew that the Hindu and the Muslim would NEVER live together under one Nation...hence the creation of Pakistan.

Some things are too much to ask from people.

Something is perceived as being so wrong it's worth hundreds of people taking their own lives to protest it. I don't think glossing over that fact is productive. There's a human factor here that needs to be dealt with, regardless of how degenrate that human may be. If we remove that from the equation, how do we ever come to some sort of peace there?

I really don't know if understanding the motives of a homicide bomber would make one iota of difference. I think these people could care less if the Israelis (or Americans) understand why they do what they do. They simply want to kill as many of their enemies as possible. Killing them BEFORE they do that is the only thing I would be worried about at this point. Motivation doesn't matter anymore, unfortunately.

It's not necessarily understanding the motive -- it's removing the concept that there is a human being involved. "Homicide bombing" is classic Vietnam-era double-speak, and if Bush honestly thinks not referring to them as "suicide bombers" is going to make a damn bit of difference, he's more deluded than I thought.

Precisely the same thing can be said of "suicide bomber". That term downplays the significance of the act.

The act: Strapping on a bomb, walking into a cafe, pizzaria or hotel lobby filled hopefully with Jews. Then detonating the bomb, sending you, the nearest ten, twenty, thirty or so Jews, Arabs, Americans - whoever - with you. Your reward - if you're male - is to be a sex fiend in the next life.

No military objective, no point to it at all. Just hatred of Jews.

Well yay, George W. can claim a victory over semantics....

So if they want to "protest" why don't they go out to the desert and blow themselves up on TV?

Or would that be unproductive since it wouldn't kill Jews?

And sematics is half the problem when it comes to political issues here in the United States. What's this enterpretation of the Constitution all about if not sematics?

Words have meaning. To change their meaning is to divert the issue. And you have to assign proper definitions to actions otherwise you downplay their significance.

I really hope the word "enterpretation" was an intentional joke, because otherwise the irony of misspelling "interpretation" in a post about semantics might just kill me.
In that case, both "suicide bomber" and "homicide bomber" are inaccurate, since both leave out a major factor in the event. Maybe "self-fatal attack"?

Regardless, I still think it's ridiculous nit-picking on the administration's part.

Nit-picking is calling someone "differently-abled" or "non-human person". Homicide bomber is an accurate term that I hope is picked up by the public.

A typo? That's your best comeback is a typo?

How about MASS-MURDERING SELF-DESTRUCTIVE TERRORIST.

Oh, but that would be too accurate, wouldn't it? Can't be too on the money otherwise you might not be taking sides.

Here's where the problem is: The people detonating those bombs are walking freely into the marketplace where they should simply be doing business...then killing as many as they can in a certian radius.

And there are people who call that a "protest".

Hmm, I guess you didn't read the rest of my post, sine the typo wasn't "all I had."

Is there anyone in this country who hears the term "suicide bomber" and thinks "ooh, a noble freedom fighter"? NO! They all know it's some fanatic who blew themselves up to kill other people.

What concerns me is that by using the term "homicide bomber," it seems the administration is trying to ameliorate the fact that there is a human being willing to kill themselves to kill others. It makes it sound like they just set down a box full of explosives and walked away to watch their "homicide." And that couldn't be further from the truth.

The idea of the martyr is one that is deeply embedded in Islamic culture. Say what you want about the mental stability of those who strap explosives to themselves to kill other people, they believe they are martyrs dying for a just cause, and as long as there are people who believe that cause is just and that suicide bombing is a viable means of furthering that cause, there will not be peace in the region. It's that simple.

But instead of trying to understand the culture that produces such emotions and exploring the issues that drive people to such extremes -- things that are essential if we're to be any kind of a peace broker in the region -- we're simply going to ignore a human being blowing themselves up so we can take some sort of moral high ground.

We need to deal with the horror of someone so enraged that they're willing to take their own life to take those of others, not sugarcoat it with semantics.

Yeah, and "homicide bomber" is so painstankingly accurate as well....

But we're not simply going to reason that out of them overnight. They're not going to hear us calling them "homicide bombers" and think, "Wait, you mean they've been killing other people too?" I think we need to understand where this fanaticism comes from in order to erradicate it without simpling erradicating the fanatics.

But what if said fanatic could care less whether we understand his motivation for murdering others?
I think that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and the homicide ( wink ) bombers in Israel could care less if we have a meaningful internal debate about their beliefs. They simply want to kill us. So why should we waste the energy understanding them and the things they do?

Because then maybe they wouldn't want to kill us?

Okay, that's simplistic, but if we went over there with some sort of plan that showed at least a grasp of their belief system and culture instead of some broad, heavy-handed, pro-Israeli "play nice or else" policy, I bet they'd be a lot more receptive to it. And it might be more appealing to those who disagree and don't routinely blow themselves up to prove it.

Right, but what about the second part of my post? If we can come up with some sort of plan that is agreeable to the not-so-fanatical Palestinians, that would remove a lot of support from the fanatics, since it would give the moderates a viable option to rally around.

It seems everything we try to do is so pro-Israel that no one on the Palestinian side is going to be pleased.