Israel Blockades Lebanon

okay well lets see when a suicide bomber straps dynamite to themselves in addition to the act of committing homicide with their attacks they are also killing themselves, or committing suicide. so there is more to what they are doing simply killing others with bombs. hence we need another term to describe what they are doing that differentiates it from regular bombing.

so we use the the term *suicide* before the word bomber to differentiate the kind of attack they are doing from the regular *bomber.*


by your logic anyone who bombs with the intent to kill people be it soldier, terrorist or whatever falls under the same broad term, homicide bomber. can you not see we need more specific language to separate these different people and their actions / intents?
 
I see the difference, I understand what you're saying, what I'm saying is that it doesn't affect whether or not that killing was right or wrong. In the RAF, they ask you on the entrane exam if you'd be prepared to bomb a civilian village. To do so would be morally wrong but still technically legitimate according to your definition. You just seem to be implying that mass genocide or whatever is OK as long as it's a state that does it rather than a terrorist organisation.
 
this is exactly why you should use the actual term that already exists to describe this action as opposed to the loaded terms each side of the issue want to use to paint their side as rightous. this is exact proof of why you should stay away from b.s. terms.

p.s. from your own link..

"The use of these two terms by opposing parties to a violent conflict demonstrates the way that propaganda contributes to social polarization. Rather than sharing a common language, the people who use these terms have invented language which enables them to deepen their estrangement and even to erase awareness of their mutual humanity."

you are right that i 100% agree with this.
 
It was a bet about Americans killing British soldiers in so called 'friendly fire' actually

'Yanks' is in common usage in the UK to describe any Americans not just those who fly the confederate flag & dress up as ghosts at the weekends.



Because they don't have to 'buy it'...yet!

I honestly believe, as I said earlier, the Americans deliberate stalling of the diplomatic process is pre-agreed. They've been given a month to do as they please as it suits the US agenda.
 
your feelings on the matter are irrelivant. you do not have the ablity to create and modify the use of language at your will.
 
Like I said, you call me a Yank to my face and I'll gladly drag you all the way across the Mason Dixon by your toe nails. It also helps to get your stereotypes straight.
 
They obviously untied him for the photo shoot

I have to agree he does look very bored though.

Being a human shield has got to be a very boring job, I hope the pay is good. All those Lebanese human shields must cost hezbollah a fortune
 
yanks are from Northern States. I am from New York so I am a Yankee. Those who fly confederate flags are by definition confederates. The people who burn crosses and dress up like ghosts are confederates.
 
hey, better tied to an israeli jeep than to a belt full of explosives. as far as probabilities go, he's got a better chance at life on that jeep. how much do you think he's worth to his family as a "martyr"?
 
Something is wrong with that logic. If a person is against Hezbollah and would be willing to turn them in but have to fear Hezbollah killing them if they turn in a member of the group, changing public opinion would not change anything. Changing public opinion is not going to affect whether or not a member of Hezbollah would kill them for turning them in.
 
Back
Top