Meridae'n

The generally accepted term is "suicide bomber," but some conservative news outlets, especially it seems in the US, prefer the term "homicide bomber." I've also heard Israeli officials use this term.

Which one do you think is more appropriate?

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

darksparkles

well, suicide bomber would be more descriptive of what it actually is, wouldn't it?
any bomber could be a homicide bomber if he intended to kill people.

__________________
"I could be the walrus ... I'd still have to bum rides off people." -Ferris Bueller.

phredgreen

i think it boils down to his state of being at the end of things... if he's still in one peice afterwards (a'la tim mcveigh) then you're a "homicide" bomber. if his body parts have been scattered within a 400 foot radius, i'd call it a suicide bomber. he's committing suicide. regardless of who/what he takes out, he's going along for the ride. i haven't heard the term "homicide bomber" (i don't get alot of my news from traditional sources) before... it sounds like something made up to make it sound more sinister than it already is.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

MikeyChalupa

I agree, phred. You gotta go with suicide bomber. OF COURSE he's a homicide bomber, but his intentions as to his own well-being are the difference.

-Mikey

Meridae'n

Well if you think about it, the point of the bombings is to blow yourself up, and try to take out some innocent bystanders. However they are not always successful. In the end they commit suicide and usually kill a few people at the same time. So if you ask me, its kind of like the is the glass half-empty or half-full question.

Why though, do we feel it's appropriate to condem these actions as cowardly. Do we accept terror more easily if it comes in the form of a man in uniform, with a gun?

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

MikeyChalupa

This was the point Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect was trying to make right after 9/11. His exact quote was "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right." It caused an uproar and his show was cancelled shortly thereafter.

I think the reason they are viewed as cowardly is because generally, suicide attacks are directed against unarmed civilians, including women and children, going about their daily lives. Nobody ever called a Japanese Kamikaze pilot cowardly, because those attacks were made on heavily armed Allied warships that were shooting back and that were involved in a declared war between nations.

Yes, it takes an unbelieveable amount of devotion to your cause, a willingness to sacrifice your own life in the hope that one day the ideals, right or wrong, that you are fighting for will be realized for your fellow people, but I think the cowardly aspect of it involves getting on a bus or walking into a market that is full of women and children that you KNOW can't defend themselves against the hell you're about to unleash on them.

There's also the natural tendency to refer to any opponent as "cowardly". You sometimes hear an adversary refer to their opponent as having fought well, but more often they will call them weak or cowardly.

-Mikey

gloveshot3

perhaps I misunderstand the motives of people who feel that the only way for themselves to fell fulfilled is to deprive others of life, and to divert the worlds resources (which could clothe, feed and educate) into military operations, destruction of life and beauty, and hatred. maybe i'm the one who is fucked-in-the-head

warrrreagl

Whatever you call them, at least they can truthfully answer what Hell is...

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.

Pyrate

I'd go with suicide bomber. All suicide bombers consider themselves martyrs, ie dying for the cause. This I believe makes the act suicide.

__________________
?

MikeyChalupa

Don't get all rankled. I'm not defending them at all. I agree that suicide bombers rank up there with racism, genocide, and organized religion as the worst things humanity has ever produced (in the middle east, all four seem to go together quite often). I'm just explaining what their rationale is.

As a product of the western world, raised either as a Christian or with no religious background, with our most basic needs reasonably well taken care of, and a decent selection of luxuries (If you have a car, a job, and internet access, you have three things that 70% of the rest of the world can't say they have), it is very difficult for us, in fact, trying to should (and rightly so) sicken us, to put ourselves in the mindset that a suicide bomber has. This is a person who has been raised in much poorer conditions than we have. They have little to nothing to live for in this world. They get promised a much better life with (insert stupid number here) virgins waiting for them in heaven, all they have to do is blow themself up on a bus. The Hamas leader who sends them out knows THEY won't personally have to provide the virgins or trip to heaven, in fact they themselves probably are conviced it's bullshit. But they know they have a seemingly endless supply of uneducated, religious zealots who want that chance at heaven. They know that suicide bombers genuinely terrify Israelis and horrify the western world as they grab headlines. And that's basically what they're looking for. They've succeeded, we're discussing them here in our much better world. A problem that genuinely doesn't have to concern us at all is now a major topic that the US and Europe are intricately involved in.

I'm surprised that I have to say this, but IN NO WAY DO I OR ANY SANE PERSON condone suicide bombers. But you wanted the explanation, there it is.

-Mikey

monty121052

My thoughts are that if no one was killed except the bomber it would be suicide bomber,no matter what the intensions were,but homicide bomber if he killed some-one else as well.

joesmith

Calling them homocide bombers is silly and reminiscent of orwellian doublespeak... Since all bombers are homocide bombers suicide bombers set themselves apart, hence deserving a seperate name.

Macheath

Agree with joesmith, very Orwellian.

The 'new and improved' media phrase ('homicide bomber') not only provides less raw information in the same number of words but is 10 times more sensationalist.

Kinda reminds me of the dictionaries in Orwell's '1984' - "The 10th edition will have fewer words than any previous edition".

The_Dude

suicide bomber cuz of it's common usage.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

MSD

I agree that it seems to be the more conservative media sources that favor "homocide" over "suicide."

I don't think that it matters what you call them, we all know what is being referred to, and the atrocities that they have committed.

sadistikdreams

hmm... homicide or suicide... *thinks*

i'd much prefer genocide, of the entire human race...

but that's just me

__________________
"Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone.
The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials."
-Lin Yutang

hearts, by d.a.

PatrickBateman

I think that if the bomber kills more than one other person, it is homicide.

__________________
Another martini, Paul?

isandro

I think the Unabomber was a homocide bomber. If you'd refer to 'suicide bombers' as 'homocide bombers', you'd easily miss the suicide aspect.
As for the cowardly aspect: compare the military power of the Palestinians to that of the Israelis. Far as I know, the Palestinians don't have any real military equipment, except for some grenade launchers and such.
I think it's really a measure of their despair to take such horrible measures.
Please understand I don't want to justify what they're doing, but I do think it may be the only thing they can do to fight back.
If they had the missiles and the rockets and the fighter-jets and the support of the US, it would be quite a different story.
This is a method to the world involved (as MikeyChalupa said)
and to get the Israeli ppl scared, hopefully into demanding the government would just leave them alone.

__________________
-Life, liberty and the pursuit of hamburgers.

mirevolver

If he only succeds in killing himself, its a suicide bomber. If he manages to kill at least one other person, it's a homicide bomber.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

Mongolguy

Kills people other than themselves = homicide bomber
Kills themselves and other people = suicide bomber
kills only themself = suicide by bomb
At least that's my take on it.

debaser

Gavrilo Princip - Homicide bomber

Saeed Hotary - Suicide bomber

Both - Assholes

__________________

AppleSauceMcGee

scuicide bomber....... of course they are trying to kill so why call them a homicide bomber.

__________________
"The Church says the Earth is Flat, But I know that it is Round, For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon. And I Have more faith in a shadow Than in the Church." - Ferdinand Magellan