in article 417158E9.A73CD5E5@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 10/17/04 2:22 AM:

> 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"?

In both cases a stronger term has been used: genocide.