asv108's Journal: Homicde Bombers?

Can someone to explain to me why the media and now GW are calling suicide bombers, "homicide bombers?" I realize that the term "suicide bombers" doesn't portray the fact that these men and women are taking other lives besides themselves, but isn't every bomber a "homicide bomber?"

It seems that anytime the media focuses on a "big issue" they always manage to play with words. For example the misuse of the term hacker was brought about when the media covered a "cracking" incident in the early 80's. Another fine example that deals not with the meaning of a word but the mispronunciation of it, happened about 12 years ago with the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Fiasco. Suddenly harassment pronounced (hair-ass-ment) was turned into (hair-es-ment).

hmmm

[heliocentric]

I see this sort of like the "hacker" / "cracker" debate you mentioned, but I'll point it out anway:

...but isn't every bomber a "homicide bomber?"

Every bombed with murdurous intent that succeeds is a homicide bomber. If they screw up, they are just an attempted homicide bomber or a manslaughter bomber. There are, however, people who use bombs for non-malicious intents: removing birdges, buildings, and mining.

Homocide/Suicide

[cybercuzco]

Homocide bomber would be a general term. For example, Timothy Mcveigh and The Unabomber would be considered Homocide bombers, because the effect of their bombings was homocide. Palestinians would also be considered homocide bombers because the effect of their bombings is also homocide. However, there is a specific subset of homocide bombings in which the bomber also dies during the act of bombing somone, and this is a suicide bombing, because the bomber commmits suicide in the acto of committing homocide.

I noticed this the other day as well.

[John Harrison]

I have been traveling across the country by car and I have not exactly been following the news. NPR has been hard to find consistently in the midwest. Hearing this term for the first time I realized immediately that this is meant to change public perception of the issue. Neither "homicide" or "suicide" fully describes what is being done. Unfortunately we live in a world of sound bites.

The term "suicide bomber" makes the Palestinians more sympathetic. It serves to emphasize the desperate plight of these people. It brings to mind the fact that many of them feel strongly enough about their cause that they will destroy their own young lives in an effort to advance their cause. Of course it is obvious that they are "bombing" something, but their intention to kill others isn't the focus of the term.

"Homicide bombers" is an obvious reaction to the inadequacies of the the term "suicide bombers". It describes the fact that the intent of these bombings is to kill other people. Whether these vistims are innocent is not addressed. It also discards the fact that someone is giving their own life to harm others.

Perhaps "people who blow themselves up with the aim of killing, maiming, and terrorizing civilians" would be more accurate. I am sure that others would want to modify this to be "innocent civilians".

This conflict is incredibly complex and I don't claim to understand even the simplest aspects of it. But I know enough to see what is happening with this particular choice of words. I don't know that it is an improvement, just a different inaccuracy.