Ernest Schaal wrote:

> >> The author in question was not Japanese and was writing in English.
> >> Therefore, the use of the word "incident" instead of "rape" is telling.
> >
> > And what of the use of the words massacre and rape? What should that atrocity
> > be called instead?
>
> Eric, I don't know if I understand what you are asking. If you are asking if
> the words massacre and rape are valid descriptions of what happened I would
> say yes. The problem with "incident" is that it serves as an euphemism.

Then why do we not use these same titles for the actions other forces during their
recent military campaigns or wars, for example, to describe what has happened in
parts of Africa, or in the Balkans? Why do we not say the "Darfur Massacre" or the
"Rape of Bosnia"?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can
shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"