So I was at the gym on the treadmill today, and Fox news was on the TV. I noticed a report about a "Homicide Bomber" in one of the captions. I know this is nothing new, but never really thought about it before.

All bombers are homicide bombers. Timothy McVeigh was a homicide bomber. So was Ted Kaczynski. Calling someone who also blows themselves up in the process is better described as a suicide bomber IMHO.



Google Results:

"Suicide Bomber" - 5,060,000 Hits
"Suicide Bombing" - 3,110,000 Hits

"Homicide Bomber" - 80,200 Hits
"Homicide Bombing" - 47,700 Hits

I agree. "Homicide bomber" is a stupid term created because Fox News assumes their audience is a bunch of morons who can't figure out that the intent of suicide bombers is to kill other people.

---

One vote for "suicide," so to speak.

Lux Interior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All bombers are homicide bombers.

Not if their bombs fail to kill anyone (whether that was their intent or not).

And sometimes suicide bombers fail to kill anyone but the bomber.

The whole issue is yet another semantic red herring as pushed by Fox.

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole issue is yet another semantic red
> herring as pushed by Fox.

Ayup.

Lux,

Neither. Calling the individual a murderer is more than sufficient. Everything else is semantics.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 01:19PM by Robert M.

The intent of any bomb dropped or delivered in the vicinity of human beings is, by definition, homicide. The only difference between a person strapping a bomb to themselves to deliver it to the proximity of those considered enemies and a person dropping a bomb from an airplane is the willingness of the former to sacrifice their life to harm others. Neither is a noble or admirable person, and both are murderers.

---

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lux,
>
> Neither. Calling the individual a murderer is more
> than sufficient. Everything else is semantics.

Yes, but calling them murderers is not descriptive of how they carried out the murders.

A situation where a gunman who kills a victim and them himself is called a murder-suicide. Calling it a murder-murder means nothing.

Car bombing
Suicide bombing
Murder-suicide

All of those are descriptive of the seperate events. Calling them all just "Murders" does nothing.

Lux,

Doesn't matter to me. The end result is the same. People are dead. Going beyond that gives these individuals more significance than they deserve.

Consider... What do you call an individual who kills someone with an edged weapon or a baseball bat? I doubt you'd use the terms "knife murderer", "homocide stabber" or "homocide batter", "Bat murderer", "homocide bludgeoner".

FWIW, car bombing doesn't describe separate events. It describes a single event - a bombing.

Robert



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 01:43PM by Robert M.

When reporting the news, yes, you would say "stabbed to death" or "shot in the head" or "bludgeoned to death". For the purpose of reporting the news, "suicide bomber" succinctly describes an event in the limited amount of time generally alloted to a news report on radio or tv.

If every news report had to include an explanation of what they meant by "murderer" every time they used the phrase in a news story, it would be very cumbersome.

I don't think it gives them any more significance.

The only word describing murder that has connotations of significance (to me, at least) is "Assassination" since it implies the death of a head of state or other important figure. However, it doesn't make the assassin any more important in my book. Nor does it make the death more tragic, just more high profile. A presidential assassination would probably get even more coverage than Natalie Holloway (who was also on the news today).

I'm only talking in terms of descriptive value and terms that have become common in describing events. "A suicide bombing in Baghdad" immediately tells me what happened. "A multiple murder in Baghdad" does not. In fact, it would lead me to believe that it was anything but a suicide bombing.

FWIW, car bombing doesn't describe separate events. It describes a single event - a bombing.

I wasn't saying that it was. I was saying that those three different descriptions describe three different types of events. Pearl Harbor was "a bombing". Oklahoma City was a car-bombing. Technically, yes, they are both bombings. Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in OK city. He did it with a car bomb. Thus it was a car-bombing. If he had driven it into the building himself, it would have been a "suicide car-bombing". If the governor of OK was in the building at the time and was his target, it would have been a "suicide car-bomb assassination." It was also a murder, a murder-suicide, a suicide bombing, a car-bombing, etc, but waht best describes that particular event?

How many names does a murderer need?

Cold blooded murderers.

---

******************************

******************************

$tevie,

That'd be true if the media was ever that succint. They never are, hence the reason I use the term murderer. It doesn't get more succinct than that. However, it also doesn't sound flashy or significant, which makes it a poor headline.


Consider... The individuals that commit this crime as well as the groups behind them _want_ the world's attention. They want headlines. I choose not to give it to them by sticking with the term murderer. It describes their crime more than sufficently.

To go beyond that gives them attention and respect they do not deserve.

Robert



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 02:22PM by Robert M.

This is one of the only occasions where I actually somewhat agree with Fox News, though not necessarily for their reasons.

The problem with "suicide bomber" is that it places one of the two primary purposes or intents of the person as suicide-- which grants what they are doing some measure of respect or even admiration from their peers, like a kamikaze pilot. "Homicide bomber" makes it more clear that their intent is not so much to kill themselves, as it is to kill other people, and the suicide aspect is merely coincidental.

That said, I agree that "homicide bomber" sounds pretty stupid, and I basically agree with Robert M. when he says we should just call them killers and murderers... since that's what they are. (Of course, if I were a Palestinian, I might call them "martyrs".)

And of course as pointed out by others, a bomber doesn't necessarily intend to kill people. He or she could be intending to destroy property, interfere with the functioning of government, create terror, etc. without actually intending to kill people (but of course people might die as a side effect).

Previous discussion on the subject here: [forums.dealmac.com]

(I don't see the purpose in going through this all again, so I'll just make my one post here and that's it...)

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $tevie,
>
> That'd be true if the media was ever that succint.
> They never are, hence the reason I use the term
> murderer. It doesn't get more succinct than that.
> However, it also doesn't sound flashy or
> significant, which makes it a poor headline.
>
> The individuals that commit this crime as well as
> the groups behind them _want_ the world's
> attention. They want headlines. I choose not to
> give it to them by sticking with the term
> murderer.

But we're not talking about giving them or not giving them headlines. We're talking about what they are called when they do get headlines. But when they do get headlines (and they always will), what best describes the event?

I disagree about any of these terms sounding flashy or significant (apart from assassination, as I mentioned before). To me they still describe murder, they just provide more information on the methods used to commit murder. Otherwise, they could just open the news with, "There were 375 murders committed in the world today. Now the weather..."

it is semantics and jargonism, to be sure.

usually it would be a combination of suicide & homicide - should we invent a word for that?

"homisuicide"? "suihomicide"?

Lux,

Exactly. They should just open with the news. I realize that is insufficient from your POV. Just understand my reasoning for not giving them more attention than they deserve.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 02:32PM by Robert M.

I agree with Robert.
The news need not be descriptive at all.
How about this:

"And now the news: 375 murders; 12 homeruns; rain, snow, heat, tornado; Tom Cruise; oral sex, dwarves, pudding. And that's the way it was, is, and will be. Goodnight."

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

"Crack suicide squad, attack!"

[www.mwscomp.com]

---

There have always been suicide bombers but it is only in the last few decades that it has become so prolific. It conjures up images of someone dying for a particular cause.It gains sympathy, if only with the group or culture that the bomber is sacrificing themselves for.
It is a very emotive description, which is exactly why it is used.
Homicide bomber neither conjures up martyrdom or sacrifice and is quite a sterile way of describing the same thing.
I do agree that suicide bombing being seen as honourable by some,just because the bomber has chosen to give their life for a specific cause, gives more credence to the act than it deserves.

bernadette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It conjures up images of someone dying
> for a particular cause.It gains sympathy, if only
> with the group or culture that the bomber is
> sacrificing themselves for.

What rubbish.
Those within the "group or culture" for whom the suicide bomber "sacrifices" themselves don't use the term "suicide bomber" at all.

You're confusing the coldly descriptive term "suicide bomber" with the loaded emotional term "martyr."

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernadette Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It conjures up images of someone dying
> > for a particular cause.It gains sympathy, if
> only
> > with the group or culture that the bomber is
> > sacrificing themselves for.
>
> What rubbish.
> Those within the "group or culture" for whom the
> suicide bomber "sacrifices" themselves don't use
> the term "suicide bomber" at all.
>
> You're confusing the coldly descriptive term
> "suicide bomber" with the loaded emotional term
> "martyr."
>
>
That is what I've just said. One is a very sterile word which conjures up nothing, and the other is seen as dying for a cause which does evoke strong feelings, especially among the group the suicide bomber is affiliated to.
Isn't that what the original topic was about, how the different descriptions are perceived?
If I've misunderstood the meaning of the topic could you explain it to me please, Seacrest?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 04:47PM by bernadette.

Bernadette,

The difference in meaning is exactly the topic. Hence, the reason I simply call them murderers. It turns their actions into just another act of violence, one that ought not be tolerated by any culture.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 04:56PM by Robert M.

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bernadette,
>
> The difference in meaning is exactly the topic.
> Hence, the reason I simply call them murderers. It
> turns their actions into just another act of
> violence, one that ought not be tolerated by any
> culture.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 04/17/06 04:56PM by
> Robert M.

I think you will find I was agreeing with you.
I did say it gives credence to violence that it doesn't deserve.
So where am I disagreeing?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 05:19PM by bernadette.

How about "blowed up real good"?

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2006 05:19PM by $tevie.

Bernadette,

I wasn't saying we didn't. I was clarifying what I thought was the topic and my answer to the question. BTW, I want to add that cultures ought not celebrate these activities either.

Robert

First, there were bombers - they left bombs to blow up after they left.

Then, came along suicide bombers - they blew themselves up, along with other people.

"Homicide bomber" is redundant and ridiculous.

(NBC just called them "suicide bombers". I think NPR called them "homicide bombers" this morning.

I agree with you,but to name only one group of suicide bombers, Muslim extremists in Iraq, they see this conflict as a fight for their religion and their culture, both of which are intertwined.
But sorry, I'm off topic here.
Yes I understood your meaning clearly Robert and concur 100%

Bernadette,

My apologies if I confused ya. Definitely not my intention, especially since you understand my point.

Robert

NPR is now using Fox speak?? Damn the republicans have done away with one of the last actual free news outlets.

Did you hear the one about the polish suicide bomber?











His wife yelled at him when he got home late.

---

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bernadette,
>
> My apologies if I confused ya. Definitely not my
> intention, especially since you understand my
> point.
>
> Robert

I thought I had.
And anyway your question does ask for an opinion, and that's all I was offering.

"Homicide bomber" is just plain stupid and ambiguous. I like "splatter bomber".

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

davester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Homicide bomber" is just plain stupid and
> ambiguous. I like "splatter bomber".
>
Would that be "splatter or spatter bomber"?

Boom, boom, boom, boom.
I'm gonna shoot you right down,
Knock you off of your feet,
And take you home with me.
Put you in my house.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.

Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I love to see you strut
When you're walking to me.
When you're talking to me,
That knocks me out.

Boom, boom, boom, boom.
You know I like it like that,
With your baby-talk,
Oh and the way that you walk.
You know it knocks me right down,
Knocks me off of my feet.

Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
How, how, how, how.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now, now, now, now.

I think they are homicide suicidal bombers.

You can bomb thing withOUT causing death and STILL suicide.

---

******************************

******************************