posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:38 PM
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.