Hezbollah is NOT the Lebanese army, nor is their militia under control of the gov't of Lebanon. How can you be this confused? Look, imagine if the Democrats and Republicans each had their own private armies, in addition to the US Army. Hezbollah is not the Lebanese gov't. Popular support does not provide legitimacy any more than a riot makes stealing legal.
No, it's a fairly common- albeit antiquated- way to call someone a sissy without using some of the more offensive language available.
What a cop out. And I don't despise Europeans; I just can't stand the contiental's hand-wringing, nanny-state liberalism that makes sheep out of men. Maybe if you all stood up for yourselves instead of hiding behind the protective shield of the US and tried putting forward a little leadership on the world stage instead of looking around for someone to tell you what to do, the average American wouldn't percieve Europeans as dainty little sissies hiding behind their big brother's pant leg.
Maybe another market for those more accurate 'bunker busters' that the Bush administrations sponsors, Lockheed Martin sold to the IDF.
PS I actually placed a bet with one of my mates in the forces at the start of Iraq W1. I bet him the 'yanks' would kill more of our troops than the Iraqis. I won a tenner fair & square
You would be right, if I had used the incorrect term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
I ask you: when a Hamas bomber straps on the bomb belt, is his intent to kill only himself, or is it to kill as many Israelis as he can? If he only wants to commit suicide, why doesn't he do it in the comfort of his own home by himself? Why do they wait until they are in the middle of a crowded bus or pizza shop? Is it because they want to die, or is it because they want to kill others as well? Are they committing suicide, or homicide?
Clearly the correct English word for what they are doing is "Homicide" and hence, Homicide Bomber is more correct.
homicide bomber is not in any common usage outside of right wing american circles. in short it is a phrase they made up to paint thier side of the argument as rightous side, the common term for attacks where the bomber kills himself is suicide bomber. what you are doing is no differnet than calling the isrealies terrorists.
I think you'll also find that "Homicide Bomber" was actually coined by the Israelis and is in fairly common usage in Israel where the majority of these attacks take place.
Even the bombers do not call themselves "suicide bombers". "...Islamists often call the act a isshtahad (meaning martyrdom operation), and the suicide bomber a shahid (pl. shuhada, literally 'witness' and usually translated as 'martyr'). The term denotes one who died in order to testify his faith in God (Allah), for example those who die while waging jihad bis saif; it is applied to suicide bombers, by the Palestinian Authority among others, in part to overcome Islamic strictures against suicide." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_bomber
Or perhaps you would prefer Canadian Parlimentarian Irwin Cotler's "Genocide Bomber" as the correct term?
Is that an MP5 the kid in the back is holding? Must be one of the elite coofftopicndo units. Though mommy forgot to tie his shoelaces before he went to battle.
Based on past experience with the whole land-for-peace principle in both Gaza and Lebanon, I have no doubt that an Israeli withdrawl will result in a permanent ceasefire by the relevant militant organisation of those areas.
Sorry but I don't think the police analogy holds up. The British police are employed by the British government to enforce the British law on the British population, and they are also subject to British law themselves. They then bring you in for a fair trial before an impartial court. The armed forces, however are employed to inflict death and destruction on the population of another sovereign nation state who have no say in the matter, and the armed forces are subject to no law other than that of their own courts martial or international law, the latter of which can only really be enforced by the winners of wars. Therefore I don't see their actions as legitimised merely because they're a branch of the state.
Also, while I don't know much about Hezbollah, I do know that some terrorist organisations exist due to not being allowed to meaningfully participate in conventional politics. In Northern Ireland, for example, catholics were for many years treated as second class citizens, the constituencies were gerrymandered and the Unionist party was mysteriously in power for over 50 years. I'm not condoning what the IRA did, but you have to admit, there wasn't a lot else they COULD do.
I see nation states as just being a stage in the evolutionary process of human society, and really they're all just gangs. Terrorists are no different in this respect. A nation state is equally capable of commiting atrocities and lacking legitimacy in its actions.
And just in case you missed it: "...In saying "homicide bomber," the speaker implies that he or she does not care what happened to the bomber. In other words, the bomber's life is meaningless. Or, as Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "The fact that they themselves died in the attack is simply not worth mentioning." "
Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Strapping a bomb on yourself in order to kill other people pretty much is an admission that you no longer are entitled to the same rights and priviledges as non-murderers. Maybe I can find the video of the guy in Iraq that fails to blow up the convoy he's aiming at because the bomb partially goes off merely wounding him. Of course, the EOD guys aren't about to close and get blown up themselves, this wounded guy still has the detonator in his hand. So they use the robot to blow the rest of the bomb with this idiot still in the car. It's pretty squared away; he's still moaning right up until the bomb blows.
Ok, I'm in the military. If as a result of a lawful order issued to me by an officer appointed over me, I shoot someone, I don't go to jail because I have the right to exercise violence in the performance of my duties on behalf of the state. What happens if you shoot someone because your buddy told you to? You go to jail right? How can you not see the difference?