If the factual answer to this question is yes, then this thread becomes an IMHO and I’ll ask a moderator to please move it.
I occasionally hear a talking head on the tube refer to a “homicide bomber”.
Question;
Are they referring to suicide bombers, but trying to put a negative slant on the term?
Opinion;
If so, then that’s silly.
Anyone who sets a bomb to kill people commits homicide. The suicide part comes into play when that person intentionally sticks around to be one of the dead. It is an important distinction.
If they’re not referring to those who strap an explosive to themselves, then detonate it, I’ve misheard and my question has been answered.
:smack:
Peace,
mangeorge
I believe the point is that if you still believe it is possible to put a negative slant on the phrase “suicide bomber” perhaps the phrase doesn’t quite capture the situation well enough. That is why I believe “homicide bomber” was coined.
Personally, I do think it’s a bit silly. If they’re bombing people, obviously there’s homicide (or attempted homicide) involved. I always felt the thing that made them unusual is that it was also suicide. I suppose I can see wiggle room in both terms…
Well, it is possible to intend to bomb infrastructure, jungle, etc. Or a ‘bomber’ might refer to a plane designed for bombing.
But I think in context it’s pretty clear if it’s someone who plants a bomb. ‘homicide’ seems redundant. I suppose he’s making the point that the suicide doesn’t affect the magnitde of the crime. But it does sound moronic.
Yes, of course. Every bombing with fatal casualties is a “homicide bombing”. This is just wordplay to deprive the suicide bomber of even the recognition that s/he was committed/desperate/delusional enough to take her/imself out.
The point that those who favor the term “homicide bomber” are trying to make is pretty plain. People commit suicide every day, usually fairly quietly and alone. Gun in the mouth, head in the oven, rope around the neck, wrists sliced to ribbons in the bathtub… Individual, private acts of utmost despair and hopelessness. Perhaps there’s a desire to punish those left behind, but not to kill them.
The freaks who strap C4 around their waists and walk into a shopping mall or get behind the wheel of a rolling bomb and drive it into a street market are committing suicide only incidentally. They are instead committing mass murder – homicide on the largest scale they can manage. Usually, the victims are civilians, non-combatants completely unaware that they are being targeted or are even likely to become targets.
The bombers end their lives, yes, but not out of despair. They believe – rightly or wrongly – that their actions will secure them a place in their versions of Heaven. Somehow, in some parts of the world, the act of ending the lives of as many infidels as possible has become a ticket to Paradise.
It’s not a matter of “I’m so depressed,” but I don’t totally agree with this entirely. Conditions for many people in the territories are quite deplorable, and I’d say it’s not quite the same as the people in Al Qaeda, some of whom are well-off and are killing for principle and martyrdom alone.
So it is, basically, name-calling. When and where did it start? I don’t recall hearing the phrase until recently.
And why do we, grown-ups, resort to such silliness? Are we expected to believe that shaming the terrorists might somehow make them stop?
A news report is not useful if it is not presented in terms its audience can understand. Conversely, the perceptions of the audience do – and should – affect the terms used in reporting news.
In my earlier post, I touched on the common perception of suicide in the US – an individual act of self-sacrifice. In our society, the act carries undertones of sadness, pity, misfortune, tragedy. A person commits suicide only when all other avenues are closed, and the pain is too great to endure.
The intent of those who are using the term “homicide bomber” is to differentiate such miscreants from those who end their own lives for reasons with which we can conceivably find sympathy.
If it’s “name-calling,” as you allege, then perhaps it’s along the line of appellations applied to those who celebrate the Roe v. Wade decision, who are called by some “pro-choice” and by others “pro-abortion.”
I think, TBone2, that I have more faith in the audience than you do. I doubt that the multitudes have any trouble understanding the difference between a terrorist and a lonesome soul who jumps from a bridge.
I don’t believe that those who use the term do so to promote understanding.
“Homicide Bomber” was a schtick popularized by president Bush in April 2002 in order to tie the Palestinian uprising into the war on terror. From Lyinig Media Bastards, Apr 15, 2002:
The only news outlet I know of that regularly uses “homicide bomber” is Fox, which I’ve seen carefully change all the references in AP reports from “suicide” o “homicide”. Interestingly, they still call bombers that don’t to kill anyone else “suicide bombers”. I remember one case where at first there were no other fatalities and the bomber was called a “suicide bomber”, however the report was duly changed to “homicide bomber” when a second fatality was reported.
Perhaps the inept ones should be called “stupicide bombers?” My point is that homicide, the killing of others, is their goal. The fact that they die in the process is just part of the cost of doing a particularly evil business.
That’s kind of like saying you’re trying to tie the mafia to the war on crime. Regardless of the validity of it’s goals the PLO is trying to achieve them through terrorism.
[/GD]
Anyway, as far as homocide vs. suicide, yes its partly a matter of spin but there is a sense of conveying the truth behind it. The act is 99% homicide. And in the West the term ‘suicide’ normally implies an intrinsic sense of tragic sympathy. And it also implies a sense of martyrdom. That they’re driven to this by honor and desperation, like the kamikaze pilots of WWII.
But these people do not deserve any sort of reverance. They don’t blow themselves up because of honor or desperation. They do it out of religious zeal. So in a way, ‘homicide bomber’ is more accurate.
P.S. The mods will move this on their own as they see fit…
The differences between religious zeal and patriotic zeal are surely fodder for debate, but not here.
Attempted diversions aside, who are all these non-muslims who have trouble understanding the concept of “suicide bomber” and therefore feel unwarrented sympathy for the terrorists at the expense of the (real) victims?
A few liberals, maybe, but you’re not going to turn them around by simply re-naming the terrorist act.
