Talk:Slogan: 'homicide bombing'

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this page is to have any validity...then the term homicide/suicide bomber need to be defined and understood as an attack on innocent civilians by someone who is willing to die in the process. All of the politics here need to be deleted and the attitude about these issues modified to simply deal with the issue of someone who intends to kill as they die. To do otherwise is an exercise in futility. After having studied these issues for more than fifteen years, if we can be of assistance someone can let us know. -- C. L. Staten, Emergency REsponse & Research Institute (ERRI), Emergency.com

Contents

[edit] ==================================

Stupidity behind the term "homicide bombing"

If this Wiki is to persist, we need to create entries for the following, equally sensible, terms: - Homicide Stabbing - Homicide Shooting - Homicide Poisoning - Homicide Assassination - Homicide Beating - Homicide Hanging - Homicide Murder - Homicide Killing - Homicide Terrorism Attack - Homicide Genocide

Most bombers intend to kill people so what is the point behind using the term "homicide bombing". This term has more to do with political agenda of the users than any attempt to describe reality. It just sound stupid if someone says "I heard there was a bombing, I wonder if it was homicide bombing" I think that it is used by Fox/Bush administration because they do not like the self sacrifice that the term "suicide bombing" conveys. The term "suicide bombing" conveys that the person was willing to sacrifice their life to kill others. On the other hand the term "homicide bombing" just says that the person was going to kill other people.

This reminds me of the campaign tactic that Bush Senior tried: to invent the phrase "pulling a Clinton" and "Waffle House" to denigrate their opponents. Not that this tactic was invented by Bush Sr., of course; I'm sure it's been in use for as long as we've had politics and spoken language. ("Hoovervilles," for instance!)

I have removed this because it is a red herring and misleading:

Others may assert that a homicide bombing can be usefully distinguished from a bombing that does not kill people but is instead aimed at, for example, destroying property. (It should be noted, however, that this usage of the term is not synonymous with "suicide bombing" as was originally intended.)

"Others may assert" this -- but have they? Who? I wouldn't include this claim in the article until it is attributed, especially because Bush (and Fox "News") started using "homicide bombing" specifically as a substitute for "suicide bombing" when both phrases were used to describe explosions in which many people were intentionally killed, including the bomber. In fact, the term did not arise as a alternative to bombs suicide bombers who destroy only property, so it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Also, please give examples of "suicide" (as opposed to "homicide") bombings in which the primary intention (besides suicide) was to destroy property but not to kill people. Really. Slrubenstein

Fair go guys, "homicide bombing" is an obvious oxymoron, and an invented term that does not have any particular currency. All bombing is homicide bar only that which (usually because it misses the target completely) manages not to kill anyone at all. It is not the place of Wikipedia to mindlessly repeat propaganda. Tannin 13:27 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

You are using a definition of the word "oxymoron" that I have never heard of. In fact, the term "suicide bombing" is the real oxymoron here. By definition, "suicide" is when you kill yourself, and not when you decide to go and mass murder dozens of people in a shopping mall. The word for that is "homicide", or "murder". I truly cannot understand how you have come to the opposite conclusion. You seem to be misusing the word "oxymoron", when you really mean "redundant". On that point, note that many terms in Wikipedia may be said to have some form of redundancy; that is how English sometimes works. It is not worth making a point about. In any case, it is just plain wrong to claim that the term "homicide bombing" has no currency. Right here in New York I hear the term, "homicide bomber" on the radio and in some newspapers, and among people I know. The word has real usage. RK
I think that the word does have real usage, despite its being totally idiotic propaganda used in a knee-jerk way by the so-government-influenced-as-to-be-tantamount-to-a-state-controlled-media that is the "fair and balanced" Fox News; they instantly started using this. The objection to "suicide bombing" misses the real distinction to be drawn. The term "suicide bomber" attempts to distinguish one of three types of bombers (there are some overlaps and distinctions caused by intention that did not come to fruition, but):
  • the bomber who purposely blows up only things (there can be bombers who attempted to kill people but failed)
  • the bomber who blows people up while intending to (and usually succeeding) in avoiding the effects of the blast himself
  • the suicide bomber, who purposely kills himeself while (usually but not absolutely necessarily) killing others.

It is the last distinction that is the significant one; to distinguish the suicide bomber from those who themselves avoid the results of the blast they create. Calling them "homicide bombers" (and the term seems to be only applied to suicide bombers) obscures this distinction and is so completely ridiculous. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:23, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the word that Tannin was looking for was "tautology". GCarty
So, dropping a bomb in Baghdad Safeway is not "homicide"? All bombing is homicide. (Except when it misses the target.)
No, this is only largely true. A very few bombers, typically members of an environmental or animal rights group, intentionally detonate bombs that are not intended to kill anyone (rarely, they do by accident). --Daniel C. Boyer 22:23, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Most of our media content here in Oz comes from the USA and (while I freely admit I do my best to avoid watching it so far as possible) I've never heard it. The term "suicide bombing" is vastly more logical, as it distinguishes between ordinary bombing (which is homicide) and suicide bombing (which is homicide with a suicide added in as well). I suspect that the real point of the term "homicide bombing" is not to obscure the fact that the bomber has sacrificed his own life in the act, but rather to obscure the real object of bombing with a B-52, an F-16 or a Harrier. By using the term "homicide bombing" to mean "suicide bombing" it them becomes easier to pretend that doing it the safe, easy high-tech way cannot be homicide. Tannin
Some bombing is not homicide. You can blow up a number of things, with or without people around (bridges anyone?). Also you get into culpibility. We don't call generally call war only homicide - we generally note that there are diffences; just as there are differences between homicides, murders, and manslaughtering. A bomber who is military and targets a barracks is engaging in low-intensiity warfae (Beriut).
~ender 2003-09-10 02:23:MST
After performing a quick google for "homicide bomber", I came across this: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020415/4026806s.htm, which you might want to read before getting to upset, especially the last paragraph. -- Ducker 14:13 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Well, there is always the technological approach: if you use a clever computer and a laser or a GPS unit as a guidance system, it's a "smart bomb". If you use a not-so-clever human and a street map for a guidance system ...... -- T

This article should only describe the neologism as such. The act itself is already described under suicide bombing. --Wik 18:05, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

I agree 100% no one outside of the US has ever heard of the term homicide bombing. It's newspeak. Mintguy 18:21, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I've protected this page. But I'm going to bed now. Please update the Wikipeda:protected page for me. Thank you. Mintguy 18:30, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

This page is the result of the discussion from Suicide bombing talk ... it's an attempt to reinstate the different bombing pages. It was suggested to split the articles up (before the protect ... and I asked again after the protect (and no one objected/commented ... so I took that as implicit yes)). This article is not only suicide bombing ... it's about bombings in general that the bomber plans to kill people .... it's a Neologism..
It's hard to believe that a few ppl can sustain inaccurate information wikipedia ... as the article stands now ... it's needs an accuracy dispute tag. reddi 18:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
Not if it's only one person who disputes the accuracy. --Wik 18:44, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)
what? There are other articles that have got dispute tags by the objections of one editor (from the limited amount of articles i've seen) .... (i just think you want to keep your POV, and exclude the information ... as usual with my dealings with you wik)
also ...the information is inaccurate ... it leaves out the real birth of the term and conveys meanings of it's use inaccurately .... it needs a inaccuracy tag. reddi 18:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
The article is perfectly accurate. The term is virtually exclusively used for suicide bombings, beginning with Fleischer in 2002. It has never been in general use for non-suicide bombings, which are just called "bombings." If you want to write about them, start an article named bombing. --Wik 19:01, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)
1st bombing redirects to Bomb.
2nd The article is inaccurate.
The term may be used for suicide bombings, but is used in general for non-suicide bombings (highlighting the criminal connotation of all types of bombings).
BTW the term began to describe the fundementalist making bombings in the american south ... eric rudolf was killing people at planned parenthood clinics with bombs (though he didn't kill himself)... that's how it began to be used (but you don't care ... this is just extending a POV ... calling an inaccurate article "accuracte"). That's just ONE of the inaccuracies in this article as it stands. reddi 19:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Al-Jazeera uses "human bomb", which I think is great - no connotation, just purely descriptive. "What was it?" "A human bomb. She killed forty people." (Just to throw a few caltrops into the discussion.) Graft 19:05, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

human bomb may need be mentioned ... but this isn't about only "human bombs" ... it's about both ppl who die (human bombers) in a attack and those that don't (plain bombers) ...
BTW, I like the term "human bomb" reddi 19:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I've unprotected the article. As a Briton, I have never heard the term homicide bombing used in any context, and had no idea of what it referred to until oooking at the article. This page should discuss the neologism. Discussion of suicide bombing in general should be under that page which is the term universally used and understood. Mintguy 08:56, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected this page at Wik's request. So how are we going to work this out? -- Cyan 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have strived to include the comments by wik (but to no avail). This is different than suicide bombing. I have listed this on the peer review article. I would like to ask ppl to check the history and read this talk page. An independent editor would be (IMO) most welcomed to edit this page, as I have tried to include the general view and specific views. See also "suicide bombing" (which is another "neologism") ... a diagreement on that article with wik led to that page being protected. the article is in limbo ... and it was suggested [before the protect] that the article be split up to this one, suicide bombing, and the operation one ... each focusing on their respective topics ....
I hope some other editor works this out, as I don't think wik and I can ... reddi 02:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
BTW, wik as continually tried to label me as a vandal and stated I'm inserting a POV, which I have tried not to (in various places) ... I have acknowledged his edit repeatedly (which he does not of other's)

If neither of you can see eye-to-eye on this topic, perhaps it would be best if both of you simply agree not to edit this page. (I can't mediate on Suicide bombing, though - I took part in the post-protection discussion.) Thoughts? -- Cyan 02:35, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'm, regetablely, gonna try to not to edit this page anymore (I may edit it from time to time, but for the most part I'm abandoning it) ... initally I thought I would keep editng (to try to get the accurate information included), but on reflecting on it I will do my best to not edit it (and concentrate on other more productive mean to help wiki) ... this is an example of what appear to be referred to as a "failed" article (for various reason, they should be pretty clear ... one of which it has been moved inappropriately from it's original space to this Slogan area) ... it's good that a average reader that comes to wiki can read the discussion page and get the additional information .... as the article now stand it's inaccurate (and the header note will notify the reader of that) ... and probably will continue to be so.
sincerely reddi

OK, I give up. What's so special about CNN? Why do we mention CNN and not mention BBC, ABC, NZBC, CBS, NBC, American ABC (insert list of nearly all other broadcasting organisations worldwide)? Tannin

I think it might help if we keep CNN out of it since it is just one of several (and not all critics are news organizations anyway). Just say that there are various critics of the term including several major news organizations. I also think that we should remove the "In general its a bad idea to use it" phrase since that is a value judgment. We should be providing facts so the user can make their own informed value judgment on their own. We should avoid trying to judge the phrase and stick to reporting facts about the phrase in a disinterested manner.Ark30inf 22:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, CNN is not "one of several" - it is one of the countless thousands of news oganisations who do not use "homocide bombing" to mean "suicide bombing". Secondly, it does not say "its a bad idea to use it" - it reports the empirical and verifiable fact that it is not used (for the perfectly rational reason that it doesn't make any logical sense - and that this reason is cited by those who bother to justify it at all). That - providing facts so that the reader can make her own judgement - is what the entry as it stands does already.

The conclusion that it doesn't make any logical sense is disputed however. Its obviously disputed by the White House, FOX News, the Washington Post, and many individuals, even other Wikipedians (I am on the record as saying its a dumb term). So you cannot put your own value judgement ("it makes no logical sense") into the article. You can report why people think it makes no logical sense, and at the same time write for the enemy and explain why they think it does make logical sense. We will then have to trust the reader to make his own value judgment based on that. Editors on this article really should be disinterested in the quality of the term or whether its appropriate for some news organizations to criticize it or promote it.Ark30inf 23:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Who disputes this? (part from Reddi) On what grounds? Tannin

It's not a slogan, BTW. A slogan is an entire sentence: subject, verb, object. This is just a phrase. Tannin

I preferred it when this was a redirect to suicide bombing. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia not a dictionary, should have one article on each concept, not one article on each phrase. The detail on etymology and the like can go on wiktionary. Martin 23:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You can't discuss the controversy and political aspects of its usage very well in a dictionary.Ark30inf 23:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dictionaries discuss etymology (who coined, first use, etc), and can provide extensive usage notes. cf dictionary:they, for example. Martin 00:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I merged this article to suicide bombing with deleting POV'd parts. It now looks objective enough. We really don't have to argue which word is accurate because we are not intereted in defining the world. -- Taku

Merging this article to suicide bombing is an error .... homicide bombing includes bombing that bombers do not die in the act. This is not objective and does not acknowldge this difference. It's simply inaccurate [homicide bombing was 1st use to describe the act of the bombers in the american south that was destroying / killing ppl around planned parenthood clinics a decade ago (or more)]. I'm not gonna edit it, but do want to point this out. reddi
The article talks nothing but the usage of homicide bombing as suicide bombing. And I don't see someone who uses the term accurately. -- Taku

Does American jurisprudence really use the term homicide bombing as distinct from homicide? DJ Clayworth 14:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Separately, whenever this gets resolved, I'd suggest adding reference to another item under "Usage and Related Terms": Suicide bombers are sometimes referred to as "not so smart bombs."

[edit] This is just taking things too far...

LEEDS, England — New evidence suggests four bombers blew themselves up on the London transportation system last week, killing at least 52 in what could be the first homicide attacks in Western Europe, officials said Tuesday.
Fox News

Yes that's right, according to Fox News there has never, not once, been a murder in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, or any other Western European nation until the 7th of July 2005!

[edit] Sorry if this comes about two years too late. . .

First off, the article is obviously about people who use their body as a carrier to transport an explosive device, then explode themselves as well as other people. In almost all cases the object is homicide, but suicide is a side-effect. I don't think either "suicide bomber" or "homicide bomber" is accurate at all. The rest of this comment deals with the terminology, but I think both terms are used enough with the illogical meanings that it would be silly to exclude either. I think it would be wise to add a small blurb that at least confirms to a potential reader that the terms are usually considered synonomous. I don't think this article is the place to explain the logic behind it though. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the terminology:

Basic Terms:

- "Homicide" means to kill people. Since the "homo" prefix means "human", a human commiting suicide would also be committing homicide, if I am interpreting that correctly, but that's not really a normal usage.

- "Suicide" means to kill oneself and, in every case I know of, the purpose is to die.

- A "bomber" is someone who uses bombs, and has nothing to do with motive.

- "Kamikaze" is a type of attack that involves hurting yourself to hurt the enemy. That may not be a correct definition, but it's a common usage.

Derived Terms:

- There are terms such as "bridge bomber", but most non-fatal bombers aren't referred to as "bombers"--probably to avoid being confused with "bad" people.

- A "homicide bomber" is someone who uses bombs to kill people, which includes most uses of bombs.

- A "suicide bomber" is someone who uses bombs to commit suicide.

- A "suicide-homicide bomber" is someone who wants to die, but decides to take out other people with him.

- A "kamikaze bomber" is someone who uses bombs to kill other people, but does so in a manner that kills himself as well.

- A "human bomber" is someone who straps bombs to people, usually so the bombs are less detectable. However, it could also include strapping bombs to a little kid, then remotely detonating them when the child reaches the target.


My Conclusions:

- "Homicide bomber" doesn't work because it doesn't require that anyone except the target die.

- "Suicide bomber" doesn't work because it doesn't require anyone except the bomber to die.

- "Suicide-homicide bomber" doesn't work because it implies a desire to die, rather than just the acceptance that death is required or inevitable.

- "Human bomber" doesn't work because it doesn't require the bomber to die.

- "Kamikaze bomber" works, because it is a description of this kind of bomber. However, as I stated above, it may not be a correct term (like the common interpretation of the word "karate" to mean "Asian fighting styles", rather than "fighting without weapons"). Even if it is a correct term, a more culturally neutral term might be better, because it tends to imply the Japanese are responsible for such attacks. I know that is completely illogical, but there are many people who fall prey to such illogic. Regardless, it is the only term I can think of that is actually correct.

- Again, I think the discrepancy should be noted, but that the article should still be linked to both "suicide bombing" and "homicide bombing", as well as any new terms that show up for the same type of actions.

Comment by: Fosley - fosley@yahoo.com (yes, I'm too lazy to actually register an account just yet)