For people defending the phrase, I got two questions:
How does it feel to be defending political correctness it its most naked state?
Do you think it is legitimate to have a phrase that refers specifically to people who kill other people by strapping a bomb to their bodies and blowing themselves up?
Okay, make it three questions, because I’ve got two followups to question 2 (but you only have to answer one of them)
2a) If not, why shouldn’t the language have such a word?
2b) If so, what term for this type of killer would be more accurate than “suicide bomber”?
Yes it can. Homicide simply means the killing of a human being by another human being. There are no moral judgements of guilt or innocence attached to the term. The Death Certificates for people sentenced to death list the cause of death as “homicide.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP! I have detested the phrase since I first heard it adopted - O’Reilly, I believe, was where I heard it first, and he had some backwards argument as to why it was a better phrase than “suicide bomber” - something about how the original phrase didn’t accurately describe what was really taking place, IIRC. :rolleyes:
It’s really a reactionary kind of thing, which is one reason I don’t like it. It’s as though those that coined the term were sitting around thinking, “How can we really express how much we hate this tactic? How can we make it worse than ever? Wait - I’ve got it! - we’ll call it homicide instead of suicide, and this will make it extra revolting!”
Second, it’s redundant, as others have pointed out. A bomber kills and destroys; there’s no further need to elaborate on that fact. Yes, yes - we have other redundant phrases in the language, I know. But, most of these are adopted carelessly and as a matter of form - not created
Third - again, as others have pointed out - it’s not as descriptive as “suicide bomber”.
Even worse. Imagine if the only time the redundant phrase “homicide shooter” was used was when the shooter ended up killing himself. Otherwise he’s just a shooter.
I agree with the people who can’t stand this phrase. It’s very simple to me: “homicide bomber” is redundant; all bombers are homicide bombers. The word “bomber” is adequate to express the homicide part. What’s different about these bombers is that they blow themselves up.
Anyway, in French, suicide bombers are des kamikazes, tout simplement.
I agree. Homicide Bomber is a ridiculous phrase, obviously created to remind us that they’re the Bad Guys. However, there are so many other ridiculous things about The Chickenhawk War that Homicide Bomber pales by comparison.
For example:
Why are they Israeli “soldiers” and Palestinian “gunmen?”
Why are they “insurgents” instead of “resistance?”
And the whopper:
They lied to us to get us into The Chickenhawk War
When we called them on it, they admitted that they lied to us to get us into the war.
AND WE DON’T CARE!
(blinking at the sheer purity of its truth) Can’t argue with that.
Indeed, it is better to overestimate your enemy than to underestimate him, but try telling the American administration that. No sirree! Those guys are cowards, pure and simple. But that is only one of the self-delusions those guys have operated under.
Republicans drive Fiats? Or are you saying homicide bombers use them?* Cuz lemme tell ya, you can fit a whole bunch more explosives in a Ryder truck–just ask Tim McVeigh. But if you have the good stuff instead of crap you made from what you could buy down at the Farm and Fleet maybe…
Yes, I know Fiats have been used by carbombers but if you Google it you’ll find as many cases of people offering the use of their Fiats as car bombs. And don’t get all huffy about the appropriateness of black humor.
Now I really wish we had the opportunity to view FoxNews up here. I mean, we keep hearing these little Orwellian vignettes, but it’s hard to imagine what it must be like to just be flipping through the channels and run into such spectacularly inept propaganda.
This is the sort of thing you tend to expect to come out of China.
Yes. But lets just not pretend it’s the mother of all inventions.
2b) “homicide bomber” better describes intent. “suicide bomber” better describe method.
“homicide bomber” is criminal awkward and moreso that the likewise awkward “suicide bomber”, I just fail to see mortal offence of it – and I suppose “suicide bomber” was also awkward when the term first appeared (which was when exactly?). I disagree “bomber” automatically describes intent to murder, thus “homicide bomber” is not necessarily redundant and more descriptive in some ways, “suicide bomber” in other ways. But “suicide bomber” works for me, because we all already assume a “suicide bomber” is a person who deliberately try to murder civilians – which really is unfair to the suicide bombers who only target troops.
Also “suicide bomber” has its share of problems too. It doesn’t describe intent very well. And it is becoming increasingly clear that many “suicide bombers” (so-called) were forced, threatened or heavily pressured to the act. A suicide can hardly be described thus if it wasn’t freely done so. Others were bribed to the act. So what do we call a person who was tied to the wheel of the car with the explosives, or who’s family was threatened with murder?
(google has the first instance of “suicide bomber” at 1985 re. the Hetzbolla bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut. But that might be just because their records don’t go further back)
There’s nothing awkward about “suicide bomber.” It’s perfectly descriptive and accurate. “Homicide bomber” is awkward and stupid because it’s redundant. Itr’s like saying “homicide sniper” or “homicide poisoner.” The intent goes without saying. It’s just a gutless, dishonest manipulation of the language by a right-wing proganda outlet posing as a “news” network.
The fact that these bombers are deliberately killing themselves is germane to the story and it’s dishonest almost to the point of corruption to ignore it. It’s spin. It’s editorializing. It’s LYING.
Amazing. I had no idea that anyone had revived this phrase, which was briefly used by the W administration a couple of years ago… but even they abandoned it rather quickly. For all I knew, it had gone the way of “freedom fries” (newspeak for “French fries”)
I don’t watch Fox News (or any network news, come to that) so I wasn’t aware they were using the phrase. I knew they were Bush shills without a shred of journalistic integrity, but really, this kind of PC jargon is just juvenile and silly.
I gotta echo Sample_the_Dog, here. Coupla things: when Faux News reports on a “homicide bombing,” what do they have to say about the local constabulary’s search for the “homicide bomber”, and the expectations of apprehension of a suspect?
Also: I understand that the latest investigations of the recent mess tent explosion near Mosul are suggesting that the culprit was not a rocket as originally suspected, but the work of a person wearing a bomb. I also understand that Faux News is referring to the culprit as a “homicide bomber.” Given the military character of the target, Rune do you wish to stand by your rationalization that the term properly and validly refers to a bomber who detonates a device with the intent to kill civilians?
Actually, the first time I noticed “homicide bomber” it was in reference to a suicide bombing in which the only person injured or killed was the human munition. I don’t remember if it was Fox, but it struck me as extremely odd.
As clumsy as “homicide-bomber” is, I think the reason that people use the term to differentiate it from “suicide-bomber” is because some some factions associate “suicide” with martyrdom.
As in, “One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.”
Homicide-bomber is an attempt to illustrate that the bombers aren’t making great sacrifices to further a belief, cause, or principle, but are simply murderers. There’s no martyrdom, or principle, involved.
In fact, I say we scrap both “homicide-bombers” and “suicide-bombers”, and replace the terms with murderers.
Except the are making great sacrifices. These dudes are willing to kill themselves. Not put their lives on the line, flat out kill themselves. That’s an important fact to know about the mindset of our enemies. We can debate about whether that’s borne from desperation, conviction, or sheer madness, but we must recognize that they value their own lives less than the chance to kill us.
Well, that’s accurate (usually, I’m not sure I’d call an assualt on a military target in warime murder, but I’ll give), but not at all useful. “Suicide Bombers” tells that
A: There was a bomb
B: The bombers took their own lives.
Homicide Bombers loses point B. Murderers loses both.
Since I don’t, it’s an incoherent question. However, I cannot think of a more blatant example of political correctness than the phrase “homicide bomber.”
Yes, let’s not. Who is?
The intent of homicide is kinda included in the “bomber” word. So I disagree that “homicide bomber” better describes intent: when we hear “bomber,” unless the term is qualified, we can safely assume intent to commit homicide.
Nobody said it does: homicide and murder are different. Almost all bombings are carried out with intent to commit homicide, and it’s bizarre political correct contortionism to suggest otherwise.
As to the first part, it DOES describe intent: the “bomber” part covers that nicely. Your second part is an interesting point: I agree that if a bomb is strapped to someone who’s coerced into the act, it’s incorrect to call them a suicide bomber, and another term (not homicide bomber) is more appropriate. Maybe call them a human bomb? However, bribery, brainwashing, etc. shouldn’t be considered: nobody claims the crazy Haley-Bopp cult people didn’t commit suicide, despite all the brainwashing there.