MEDIA: The term "suicide bomber" is replaced by "homicide bomber".

Ok, why is our mainstream media once again "propping up" that fanatical act most often perpetuated by Muslim Extremists? I keep hearing "homicide bomber" when a couple weeks ago it was "suicide bomber" on News Radio. Is the term supposed to be more accurate? Seems to me a "homicide bomber" wouldn't be killed along with his/her victim(s), yet the media seems fit to change it?

I suspect in a few years in the interest of political correctness, the media will be referring to these idiots as "Cuddly Fuzzy People Who Like Make Boom!"

What is up with this practice by the Media?

[edit on 13-5-2009 by CreeWolf]

I remember this term popping up shortly after 9/11/01. I can't recall for sure if it was just FOX News or not. It didn't really stick the first time so why should it now?

All bombings intended to take human life are homicide bombings by definition I'd say.

Edit: Found this right off on a Google search dated Feb. 23, 2005:


mediamatters.org...


[edit on 5/13/2009 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 5/13/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Yes well, it never really rolled off the tongue like Kamikaze did in my opinion.

Same idea, different people displaying the same reckless abuse of human life. Once upon a time, the sacrifice of life was seen as a great honor. Blood a precious offering, not any more today blood is spilt by the hundreds of gallons.

Not only that, biological and chemical contaminates are being used by rogue state sponsored groups to create highly infectious living bio and chemical bombs. Then the known unknowns become variable. Unknown unknowns are the worse, but first the previous.

Known unknowns like dormant carrier bombs, people who are infected with a biological and or chemical, that continues to infect and contaminate others. So instead of one explosion of an isolated attack. There is a continual effect that builds in proportion to the time "incubated" if you will.

So, with out going to much further out side of the border on off topic, the media will use what ever catch phrase gets ratings.

Technically though, suicide implies self death, where homicide is another causing the death.

Not sure if I have heard it called homicide bomber though, it's all the same to me.

Shouldn't they be called Murder/Suicide Bombers??? Only place I've ever seen the term "Homicide Bombers" was on Fox News. Seems a bit goofy to me.

reply to post by CreeWolf

---

Well,,maybe I am misinformed, but I recall the Bush administration calling for suicide bombers being referred to as homicide bombers. Anyway, it does make sense. A bomber who kills other people should surely be called a homicide bomber. A suicide bomber would only kill himself or herself, by defination. Like the Buddists, sp? in Viet Nam would set themselves on fire to protest the war. They only killed themselves, not others. They were suicidal, not homicidal.

If I were to come up to you and your friends and shoot each of you, killing you, then kill myself, would that only be a suicide?

reply to post by Ryanp5555

---

So, they should be called "Murder/Suicide Bombers? I like that better than just "Homicide Bomber".

They all stink. Why not just say some d-bag killed a bunch of people today by straping a bomb to his chest. At least he will be getting what he deserves in H-E-double hockey sticks.

The correct definitions for both is as follows :

A suicide bomber intends to cause death but only results in killing themself and no one else. If you hear of an attack that kills 1 and injures 20 the bomber is the only fatality.

A homicide bomber intends to cause death tjat results in the killing of not only themselves, but at least 1 other person. If you hear of an attack that say, kills 10 and wounds 25, the bomber killed others including themself.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by TheImmaculateD1]