Why "homicide bomber"?

On the Fox News website they have run a story on the London bombings last year.

Would anyone have any idea's why they have used the term "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide bombers"? I know what those bombers did that day amounts to homicide, but it's just not a phrase i've ever heard before.

Maybe because the word "homicide is not one we tend to use much here in the UK? I might just be reading into things here too much, it was just an unusual term to use thats all. Heres the extract.....

A year after homicide bombers brought carnage and chaos to three Underground trains and one of the city's iconic buses, life in the capital has returned to normal — almost.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

Is the term "homicide bomber" commonly used over there in the US rather than "suicide bomber"?

CX.

[edit on 7/7/06 by CX]

[edit on 7/7/06 by CX]

The term "homicide bomber" was a politically correct term created by Fox News to make it clear that those who did it were murderers. Larry C. Johnson was quoted as saying it was a stupid thing to make up, because suicide bombings, by definition, are homicide bombings (since someone dies anyway).

It fell out of use after a while in the U.S., Fox News likes to throw it out every now and then.

Ah i see, thanks for the explanation.

CX.

I think the term "homicide bomber" and "suicide bomber" both sanitize the event. Better to call the "suicidal bombers that intend to kill and explode unsuspecting men, women and children without remorse" would be better but it doesn't make good copy.

Well you could say that a suicide bomber is in a sense blew himself up with a bomb, hence the name suicide bomber. If the person kills him or herself with a bomb intent on killing many people, then thats a suicide homicide bomber.

The term, seems to me, to have been created for the purpose of callous sensationalism.

To specify that one was a "homicide bomber" is not only poor grammar, but it would seem to indicate that we need to differentiate between suicidal bombers and homicidal bombers. This places all the focus on the individual with the bomb instead of on the victims of the bomb. Both types of bombers would have killed many people with their bombs, but some people would have us only focus on whether or not the bomber him/herself was included in the death toll.

I think the reason for this is that, while it is not unusual to die when a bomb goes off, it is unusual to purposely put one's self in proximity to a bomb in order to die when it goes it off. In short, it isn't weird to die - it's weird to purposely die. I think some people are more interested in the weird than in the tragedy of such an event.

To me, to promote the use of the term "homicide bomber" displays a certain shallowness, a hard-hearted focus on the macabre - and a lack of concern for the victims of tragedy.

The only other reason I can see for the term "homicidal bomber" might be to differentiate between bombers who have the intent to kill others and bombers who merely blow up things without any intent of harming anyone at all. Since there are so few of the latter, I don't think this is the case.