Talk:Suicide bombing/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old discussion

I tried to define suicide bombing objectively, as well as to present two of the main ethical appraisals of it. A difficulty in discussing anything to do with "terrorism" is, of course, that many advocates persuasively maintain that their side isn't guilty of terrorism: their targets are legitimate, the women and children aren't innocent, and so forth.

It can be difficult to refute such arguments, while consistently justifying the military bombing of cities in declared war: e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima.

I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! Ed Poor

IMHO the specific act of suicide bombing is inherently neither terrorist nor non-terrorist. It is only one tactic among many others. The specific choice of target determines its terrorist nature. Eclecticology This is also follows the definition of terrorism used in the article linked.

I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL

I worry about the focus on Islamic or Arab in this article. Even if true (and I am not immediatley convinced it is) I would think that the description should not include ethnic linkages. After the description, a list of groups engaging in suicide bombing (and notes on cynide capisuls), and perhaps a note that most suicide attacts are Arab or Islamic (assuming it's true) with a brief note of explination - such as currently large number of Islamic people feel that their religion, values, and countries are under attack by the west, and are unable to respond in any other way. I note that Islam has very strong prohibitions against suicide, this probably should also be covered. - Karl

The article clearly states that suicide bombing is not accepted by most countries. I am recommending that as an addition, the quote from the Koran on prohibition against suicide also be added. In general, it should be quite clear that suicide bombing is not considered generally acceptable. This too can be stated. It IS important to say why people engange in suicide bombing. Given the rather strong comdemnation of it in the general description, no rebuttal is necessary. If one group is singled out, then the reasons that this group engages in suicide bombing is important. I don't think that the truth of these reasons needs to be debated, rather when listing the reasons, comments like the Palistinian people believe that ... An additional section on the results of suicide bombing, ie escellating violence, terroristic responsees by the victim countries, demonization, evaporation of public support... (again without justifications... with the obvious result of escelating results until someone backs down (Sira Lanka might be a good example here.)Karl

Removed para:

Israel does everything possible only to target known terrorists who happen to also be civilians or to be posing as civilians. An unbaised observer should conclude, based on the record, that Israel does all it can to avoid collateral damage among innocent civilians, a task made near impossible when terrorists use civilians as human shields, invade and take over religious shrines such as the Church of the Nativity, or flee to and hide in densly populated civilian areas while being pursued. The record unfortunately shows, on the other hand, that Palestinian bombers tend to strive to do all they can to seek out maximum casualties among civilians. Reviewing their attacks one finds they prefer crowded buses, shopping or dining areas and other places where one bomb will have maximum killing effect among innocent civilians. This effect is further enhanced by deliberate addition of shrapnel to the bombs, for instance by packing large numbers of nails or other such items around the explosives. Finally they also have been known to arrange for a second bomb timed to go off in the same area when emergency crews have gathered and are working to recover the dead and relive the wounded. Each of these tactics is carefully, deliberately calculated to maximize casualties among civilians.

The above passage needs some serious NPOV work before the few sentences of good, non-redundant material within it can be included back into the article (much of the above is already stated in the article, albeit in a more - yet still not great - NPOV way). --mav

  • The Japanese kamikaze bombers for example clearly had other alternatives, and were not all that interested in altering the policies of a country in the way suicide bombers from terrorist groups are.

As a general rule, when a writer says something is clearly so, they're usually expressing their own opinion. Otherwise they would provide the fact that they imply is so "clear". To be neutral (or even to make sense), the above comment should indicate what "alternatives" the kamikaze pilots had. (The only thing I can think of is just tolerating failure of their bombing missions due to inability to deliver bombs accurately enough.) --Ed Poor 20:34 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

ah - I was under the impression that the japanese were using suicide bombing as a tactic in and of itself, from quite early in the war - before the failure of their bombing missions was so apparent. Similary, they were not doing that badly in the first part of the war, unless of course you are arguing that it was the suicide bombing that caused the japanese success. No matter. The purpose of the sentence was to try to show an example which did not include all the points listed. As opposed to discuss a point in detail. Karl

If an article edit is worth 1,000 comments, I put up Suicide bombing/temp to express my ideas on the current article. DanKeshet 21:21 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Karl, I'm not trying to impose my views. If you have a reason for omitting my 3 paragraphs on military and "irregular" tactics, I'm happy to discuss it here on the talk page. Often when two people edit the same article rapidly, an "edit conflict" and one or both contributors lose their work. I would rather just come back later if you need to have the article to yourself for a while. --Ed Poor

Ed - i like your changes as currently made Karl

Thanks, but I found an even better version by DanKeshet. So I replaced all my work and your work with his version. This will be my last edit for now. I want to let everyone else have a chance, and I don't want anyone to feel I am "imposing" anything. --Ed Poor

it's fine, just as long as middle east warfare stays in other articles. You "imposing" things? Na! Who would ever do such a thing! :) Karl
It's so easy for me to "detect" bias in others, but usually awfully hard to see my own bias. I tend to think I always write neutrally, but several times a week someone has to correct me -- then I see my error. I guess we all have to coach each other. Anyway, I'm giving this article a rest till tomorrow. Come take a look at Palestinian, which I just spent an hour completely re-writing. --Ed Poor

Haven't the article lost alot since a few dozen edits? Like the discussion about the typical suicide bomber, reasons (or theories on) why it exists, countermeasures and so on? And I don't understand why there aren't ANY text related to the Palestinian suicide bombers. It is in Palestine/Israel that most of them occur. Anyway, I'll be back.. in a few days :-) Nice to see Ed too --BL

Oh dear, this is one of the most appallingly biased entries it has been my misfortune to see on Wikipedia. After a heavy edit, it's still poor, but improved a little at any rate. I removed this para of Righteous Revenge rhetoric:

The kamikaze attacks against American warships in 1944 and 1945 as Japan was already losing the war, only further antagonized the fighting men of America against the Japanese. American rage and firepower was unleashed onto the Japanese mainland by US bombers in massive fire-raid bombings that killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens on Japanese soil. And when America finally dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September of 1945 there was little mercy felt for the Japanese people because of their attack on America at Pearl Harbor in December 1941and culminating with the futile tactics of kamikazes as they lost the war.

because (a) it's difficult to see how Allied forces could have felt any more rage than they already did after the atrocities of the early part of the war (many of which were only coming to light in 1944/45 as Allied troops occupied areas where the Japanese had been in control - Burma, Phillipines, Borneo, and so on), (b) the bombing of Japan had been planned long before the kamikaze attacks began, and the bombing of Germany (which had nothing to do with kamikaze attacks) was in no way different, (c) because Pearl Harbor is completely irrelevant.

I have not the slightest intention of touching the Israli-Palestinian stuff, nor even of passing an opinion on it. I'll leave that one to those who take an interest in that conflict and are qualified to judge. The final S11 para reeks of righteousness, but I'll leave that one alone too, at least for now.

Tannin 08:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I deleted "perfidious".  :) -- Zoe
I didn't see "perfidious". Guess I was too busy swing that axe. Pity, the word has a nice ring to it. Now, if I could only work out how to get "perfidious" and "recalcitrant" into the same sentence, I'd go into politics. :) Tannin

Why would we bother to have any amateur assessments of its effectiveness? If there's somebody who's done a military study of the circumstances in which it can or has been effective, we should include it, but barring that, I don't see the need for armchair analysis. DanKeshet 16:29 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL"

Though not really a suicide bombing exactly, they both share the same essential feature of a terrorist act performed by a person with no regard to their own safety or future. The absolutely bizzare thing though, and something which really needs to be explained, here or anywhere, is why suicide bombings? If you don't care about living, couldn't you do better by running down the street with a machine gun?

The Eric Rudolph reference fits this article not at all; he obviously lived through it. - Hephaestos 04:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Homicide bombing includes both ppl that live through it and those that don't .... (mabey a seperate article for Homicide bombing is needed?) reddi 04:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think another article would be a good idea, yes. - Hephaestos 05:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'll try to do it if no one has objection ... unless someone else get the opprotunity before I do ... reddi 07:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Neologism

I protected this page due to the edit war. It will remain protected until a consensus is reached on this page. --Jiang 08:01, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[moved from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles ]

Who protected it on Reddi's version? Clearly "suicide bombing" is not an invented term, it's a perfectly ordinary compound use of established words. It just became commonplace in the 1980s because that was when suicide bombings became commonplace. Reddi just wants to equate the terms "suicide bombing" and "homicide bombing" for obvious reasons. --Wik 07:23, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
Please look at this link http://www.wordspy.com/words/suicidebomber.asp and the Neologism article ... I'll be moving anymore discussion to Talk:Suicide bombing ... it's not because I want to equate the 2 ... it's is because they are both Neologisms reddi 07:34, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Vote

All right, let's try to have a vote here.

For the description of "suicide bombing" as a "neologism":

  • (none yet)

Against:

For using facts instead of votes for aticle information

Wik ... what is this vote for? the definiton of what is a neologism? I think the neologism article say that ... and suicide bombing has only been around for 20 years (the neologisms of videotape is about as old and radar is alot older) ... a vote isn't gonna change facts (unless that's how wiki handles things like this ... changing facts to fit votes) .... reddi [also, don't vote for me ... i think i can do that myself (but the vote is silly IMO) ...]

It's you who's not listening to facts. The neologism article says a neologism is an invented word. "Suicide bombing" didn't need to be invented. The meaning doesn't need explanation. If many people were suddenly to start having elephants as pets, the term "pet elephant" would naturally "appear" (in the same way "suicide bombing" "appeared" in the 1980s); it wouldn't be a neologism. And of course it's impossible to prove when such a term was first used. So your 1981 citation is only the first use known to the WordSpy site, but it's very unlikely that it was in fact the first time anyone used it.
The vote is to solve the matter by a majority decision. Then the one who still goes against it should be regarded as a vandal with all that might entail. Otherwise this edit war will just go on forever. (I thought your vote was obvious, but if you don't want to participate, that's fine, you'll still have to accept the result.) --Wik 08:03, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
I just searched the New York Times archives and found this reference from 1960: "It turned out that the heavily insured man who is suspected of a suicide bombing of an airliner was a young man in trouble. At the time of his death, Julian Andrew Frank, one of thirty-four victims, was entangled in a web of complicated financial deals and was facing charges in some of them." (NYT, January 16, 1960, p. 23). --Wik 08:26, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
still a neologism ... radar is older (WWII) and it's still a neologism reddi (can't change the fact that it's a neologism)
BTW ... got a link to that? I'd like to read the article .... (see the link on homicide bombing history ... that may have been taken out of context (or homicide bombing can date back to the 1970s (IIRC)))


"Radar" will always remain a neologism because it was invented. "Suicide bombing" wasn't, neither in 1981 nor in 1960, it didn't need to. Can't give you a link as the archives aren't freely available. But I copied the entire text (it was part of a news summary). --Wik 08:47, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
It's me who's not listening to facts? oh ok ... attack me and not the particulars of the discussion .... The neologism article says a neologism is an invented word. "Suicide bombing" was invented (about 20yrs ago). [see previous word spy link and previous comments]
The meaning does need explanation. (all word have to be explained at one tiome or anouther ... also words change meaning over time (like conservative had a opposite meaning than it does today 100yrs ago)).
... naturally "appear" (in the same way "suicide bombing" "appeared" in the 1980s); it wouldn't be a neologism? ... I think i see what you are saying... that suicide bombing is just a compound ... but that same logic can be applied to homicide bombing (i.e., homicide bombing id 2 distinct parts of a phrase) ...
It's impossible to prove when such a term was first used? no ... really ... the proof is in the citation that it is first recorded ... sure it could have been used causally, but it's not the intent (just like homicide bombing was used in 1979 (and probably way before too), but it's implication was not fully fashioned till the late 1990s).
... citations are the only way to really now the first use occured ...
solve the matter by a majority decision? so change fact to fit votes? that's not too accurate ...
[snip vandal label attempt]
edit war will just go on forever? ummm ... isn't there another way to go about it? there has to be another way ... mabey ppl should edit toward something and not away from something (like putting info in and not taking it out ... it's that a wikitip when you become an editor, i thought i saw that somewhere? ...)
[snip "you have to accept the inaccuarcy"]
reddi 08:27, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

By definition, every word was a neologism at some time. Shakespeare invented more than a few words that are still used in English today; it's kind of silly (and inflammatory) to go around calling words and phrases neologisms. Even when you discuss the origin of the phrase, you don't need to use the word "neologism". Come on, Reddi: is this article about the phrase "suicide bomber" or is it about suicide bombers? -- Cyan 09:02, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the last version before the edit war started. This is fair to both parties and can be easily undone once a consensus solution emerges. I strongly advise sysops against tinkering with this page until that time. Thrash it out here on the talk page, make a /temp page to work out a suitable formulation, whatever. But we should not be editing protected pages.

please revert the page to a version that has some information (as that version is really low on content) ... or atleast just take out the neologism parts ... as that version is ancient and leaves alot of inforamtion out ....
could soneone make a /temp page? I'd like to work to get the information out ... and get to (what I hope) a compromise (somehow). reddi 08:27, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Reddi says (on my talk page) Ummm ... the last page before the edit war on suicide bombing was by Hephaestos. I considered using that as my even-handed revert point, Reddi, particularly as Hephaestos is a very well-respected contributor with a great deal of experience. However, the page history shows a great many edits by you and by Wik in the few days prior to Hephaestos' edit also, so to make sure that I was not favouring either one of you, I went back a little further, to mid-May and The Cunctator's edit (i.e., before you and Wik became involved.) It is possible that one of the immediately following edits would have done equally well. The main thing was to make sure that the temporary version did not favour you and did not favour Wik. The sooner you, Wik, and the Wikipedia community negotiate a sensible wording, the sooner we get rid of the locked temp page and get back to improving the 'pedia. (Naturally, I do not intend to become involved in this dispute myself, save as an umpire trying to ensure fair play.) Tannin 08:20, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For Reddi (and for interested others too, of course) I've made a page at Suicide bombing/Temp that is not protected and includes three or four different versions of the article. (Get to whichever one you want through the page history.) That would be a good place to work out the final shape of the article. Remember that the wiki way is based on consensus, on persuading people that your idea is a good one, and on being able to listen to other points of view. Be sure to play nice, as we don't want to have to protect the temp page as well! Tannin 11:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Proposal and rationale

The purpose of using "neologism" to describe either term is a fairly transparent attempt to insert POV by disparaging the term for its newness; "well, somebody just made that up!" To achieve NPOV, I think this article needs to leave the idea of "neologism" alone completely.

If the purpose of using "neologism" is to describe either term is an attempt to insert POV, I would suppory leaving the "neologism" out. If the purpose of using "neologism" is to describe the terms as constructed words, it should be used for all the terms. (personally I don't mind neologisms, thay are useful and helpful ... it's what make the english language rich and dynamic IMO ...)

I did some Googling today, and came up with some interesting results. The web at large would appear clearly to prefer the term "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" (which I admit didn't surprise me at all):

Googling results
Googling with some different results to give a bit different perspective.
As note to the preferences of the web the term "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" primarily because "suicide bombing" is alot older than "homicide bombing" (as far as I can tell; early 1980s vs late 1990s).
[unquoted stats below]
"suicide bombing" [1]  results:195,000
"homicide bombing" [2] results:  3,390
without the ""
suicide bombing 529,000
homicide bombing 40,500

What I did find surprising was that, after looking some more, it appears that the term is not preferred by the U.S. Government...

The U.S. Government has preferred the term since only after the last few years (4 yrs?; atleast since the war on terror started)
"suicide bombing" site:gov [3] results:  1,130
"homicide bombing" site:gov [4] results:    55
without the ""
suicide bombing 3,110
homicide bombing 869

...nor by Israelis...

"suicide bombing" site:il [5]   results:3,320
"homicide bombing" site:il [6]  results:  106
without the ""
suicide bombing 4,710
homicide bombing 208

...nor even by Fox news.

"suicide bombing" site:foxnews.com [7]  results:285
"homicide bombing" site:foxnews.com [8] results:118
without the ""
suicide bombing 586
homicide bombing 277

In light of this, our article here looks really skewed with regard to reality. What I would do, therefore, is replace the entire section currently titled "Neologism" (which, as I mentioned, is POV in itself) and replace it with one paragraph, of two sentences, briefly explaining "homicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" (which got 3,620 web hits overall; with such a low figure I doubt it's any more common than "homicide bombing"). - Hephaestos 22:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Skewed view?
The article expresses valid concepts ... I wouldn't say it's skewed (YMMV on that though) ... each of the three are valid topics that are used by ppl (one an older western view, one a newer western view, and the last one a non-western view).
Replace the entire section currently titled "Neologism"?
How about splitting off the article portions? (as was mentioned in previously in talk)
... Each of the terms in the section currently titled "Neologism" could be a article unto themselves .... and a compare with wikilink could be provided on each (of the thre concepts) to contrast/compare them ... (this would also (IMO) be a editing toward a goal of provideing information and not taking away from existing information)
This could also prevent conflicting information on each concept .... and clarify each concept a bit better ... reddi 20:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Human bomb

Whenever I read Arab newspapers in English, they use the phrase "human bomb" (by analogy with "car bomb", "truck bomb", or "mail bomb"). Although I can't currently find it in any Arab papers, Here is Benazir Bhutto using it in The Indian Express. DanKeshet 05:37, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)

www.arabnews.com, which I think is the leading english language Arab news site, uses "suicide bomber" exclusively. -BuddhaInside
The arabnews website search finds 20 articles that use "suicide bomber", and four that use "human bomb" (well, five, but that last one is talking metaphorically about Korean soccer player Cha Du-ri's skills on the field). Leaving out opinion/editorial articles, the count is twelve for "suicide bomber", two for "human bomb". -- Cyan 02:35, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I should add, then, that my previous statement was based on two Google searchs. Googling for "suicide bomber" on arabnew.com site yields 263 hits, while Googling for "human bomb" on arabnew.com site yields zero. -BuddhaInside


OK, it's been a couple of weeks. I've unprotected the page. We can sit back and see what happens. If a major edit war breaks out, then it might have to be protected again.

Note that the current revision is an old revision. Be sure to read the edit history before making major changes. Tannin

Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified or controlled or devalued lives, and consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community to compensate for their own life.

This is an interesting argument. Does anyone have citation[s] for it? -- Pde 01:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ed Poor changed the definition to:

A suicide bombing or human bomb is an intentional attack on people or property with explosives, delivered in such a way that the attacker knows he will die (see suicide, compare homicide bombing)

Your revised definition now includes things which do not fit the usual conotations of suicide bombing. For example, a soldier in a hopeless position in combat throwing a grenade rather than surrendering.

I also must confess that I don't understand why you want to place the link to homicide bombing in the first paragraph. While relevant somewhere in the article, it sheds no light on the definition of the concept at hand.

-- Pde 14:08, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"delivered by a person who knows the attack will cause his own death" seems to get round the 'last ditch grenade attack' case - unless the solider deliberately includes himself in the grenade's casualties, in whcih case I would say it is a suicide bombing - although not the usual kind. 207.236.234.180 19:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pde, maybe we should add something like the following to the article:


Often such attacks are planned long in advance, to achieve specific political or military goals.

Other such attacks are sometimes planned on short notice, as in response to a sudden shocking event, as dramatized in a movie which portrayed a victim of rape by Japanese soldiers who strapped a hand grenade to her abdomen and approached a group of unsuspecting Japanese soldiers (a "revenge attack"). Or the commonplace "they'll never take me alive" approach of a soldier who detonates a hand grenade to avoid capture, a sort of "human [[self-destruct mechanism".

What various parties call it

  • Arab press : human bomb
  • Bush's press secretary : "homicide bombing"

--Uncle Ed 13:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nicely phrased, Uncle Ed. Tannin 13:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The header section is now fine. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What various parties call it? the Isrealis widely call it Homocide bombing (though the individual doesn't live through it). Do a search on HB and most of the recent news article references are by istealis. Giving the arab view without the isreali view seems kinda a POV. reddi 00:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, then how's this?

  • Arab press : human bomb
  • Bush & Israeli press : "homicide bombing"

--Uncle Ed 19:27, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's be OK .... but the full tale is ...
- Arab press : human bomb
- Bush administration, some American media outlets, & the Israeli press : "homicide bombing"
- Some other American media outlets & European press: Suicide bombing
[state it however seems good to you though ..]
May I posit that some of the old information get copied out of the moved to temp page get reinserted too (I'm not gonna edit it, but somone may find some good info in the old article) reddi 19:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh, right. I was only listing the alternates. The Western media have pretty much settled on suicide bombing as a term. Now we can move on to the moral/ethical issue... --Uncle Ed 19:55, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I put a link in [lower in the article] ... but didn't edit the news ref part, Western media have pretty much settled on suicide bombing as a term for bombers that kill themselves with the bomb, but it'd be fair to mention what the isrealis call it (especially since that what's mostly happening to them) [as homicide bombing can include bombers that die in the bombing and those that don't; some bombers don't plan to kill anyone (sometimes) so they would not be include in either] ... the ones that do this want to call it something entirely differently ... reddi 20:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hate to get picky, just when we were becoming such good friends, but:

  • human bomb is a person who carries out a suicide bombing attack
  • suicide bombing is the action (the attack itself)

One term refers to the person, the other to his action. (Just a little point of English grammar) --Uncle Ed 20:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Innocent Israelis

Re:

attempted to kill innocent Israelis using suicide bombers

Are we all agreed that the Israeli civilians whom Palestinian Arabs kill via suicide bombing are "innocent"? I daresay some pro-Arab writers believe that the targets of suicide bombings are not always "innocent" -- that's just their POV, of course, just as mine is that the civilians are "innocent" -- but it's still POV I figure.

Maybe we should use a different word. --Uncle Ed 22:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the killer's POV the victims are alway were a legitimate target and deserve to die. You may add that "pro-Palestinian writers argue the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians are justified because..." but I think we all agree than a 2-months old baby dining in a restaurant with her parents, or an old men sitting ob a bus, are innocent. MathKnight 21:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I found an earlier usage of the phrase "suicide bomber". The Times (London) of April 15, 1947, page 2, refers to a new pilotless, radio-controlled rocket missile thus: ' Designed originally as a counter-measure to the Japanese "suicide-bomber," it is now a potent weapon for defence or offence '. The quotes are in the original and suggest that the phrase was an existing one. An earlier article (Aug 21, 1945, page 6) refers to a kamikaze plane as a "suicide-bomb". --zero 23:48, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

9/11

Do the 9/11 attacks really warrant a mention in this article? Strictly speaking, they don't fit the article's own definition of a suicide bombing, although there are some superficial resemblances. - Seth Ilys 20:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I should have read the debate over the definition more thoroughly... - Seth Ilys

Following material moved from Wikipedia:Peer review by Wapcaplet 22:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Homicide bombing

It contains a lot of information POV'ed info (when Wik reverts it), ignoring other factual part of the term. It leaves out information which is not particularly difficult to verify. It is being reverted constantly by Wik who is known to write POV'ed on this topic. I have strived to include the comments by him, but to no avail, could someone please peer review the article (and check the history and the talk pages) reddi 01:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A strange reversal of the facts. I describe "homicide bombing" correctly as a POV term for suicide bombing, while Reddi describes it as if it were an objective term (and earlier tried to call "suicide bombing" a "neologism", which already led the suicide bombing article to be protected). His persistent POV editing (also in Current events) amounts to vandalism in my opinion. Any sysop reading this, please protect Homicide bombing. I guess both pages will just have to be protected until Reddi either agrees to change his behaviour or is banned. --Wik 01:44, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)
From a strictly semantic point of view, I think that suicide bombing is the correct term. Any bombing of the more conventional types - i.e. shelling and airstrikes - can be termed a homicide if the speaker is a sufficiently outspoken pacifist. The word suicide, on the other hand, uniquely identifies it as an act of utter desperation, to which people resort when the steady barrage of ostensibly religious propaganda turns people into driver ants. (Well, maybe it doesn't have quite that much meaning, but I hope you'll excuse my fit of eloquence.) -Smack 05:13, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree; homicide is usually referred to an act in which one kills someone else. When someone kills someone and then takes their own life, I have never heard of it being called a double murder but always as a murder-suicide. Thus the act of using explosives as an attack which the person delivering them knows that they will die in doing so, would be correctly identified as a suicide bombing not as a homicide bombing. Paul --Rfc1394 00:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

End of moved material

Accurate explaination removed

[White house explination -- wordspy]

Wik continues to remove the accurate explianation of homicide bombing.

The term was established by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in April 2002. The White House Press Secretary used the term to state:
"A bombing that intentionally kills another person; a suicide bombing in which the bomber's intent is to kill other people". [9]
The use of the term is not as common as that of suicide bombing, although FOX News and the New York Post, among others, have adopted its use.

JDR 20:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protected

Saying rv for already stated reasons doesn't tell us why you reverted this, Wik. If you don't give an explanation, it looks like you're censoring the article.

That's the kind of behavior that makes people want to ban you. Please stop it. --Uncle Ed 21:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's happening now? Why is the article protected? -- Taku 19:29, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Because Reddi keeps trying to insert his WordSpy quote in an attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" (as if WordSpy were some kind of authority). --Wik 19:34, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Who then is an authority on the questions? Kingturtle 19:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Any well-known dictionary. And they won't have this term, because it never caught on and therefore does not need any further description than that which is already in the article. --Wik 19:43, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
This term is legitimate and is used (read as "caught on") by some (including some conservative press outlets) ... it is factual ... and does need further description (than what is in the article; the article does not explain it as it should) AND I'm not the only one that is inserting this FACTUAL information (for context and clarification) [see article history] ... also, see the Ari Fleischer article. JDR 20:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) (I'd not be surprised if Wik rv's the Fleischer article, also)
A google search for "homicide bombing" retrieves 3,800+ results. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer used the term in 2002 . Fox News uses the term a decent amount. So the term has caught on enough to justify appearing in this article, no? Kingturtle 20:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Appearing, yes, but no more than it is in my revision. --Wik 20:28, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Wik. you just said "because it never caught on and therefore does not need any further description".....now you acknowledge that it caught on enough. So you should also acknowledge that it DOES need further description in this article. Kingturtle 20:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. A brief mention is more than enough. It has not caught on in the mainstream, it is only used by some who want to push a certain POV. --Wik 20:38, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Your rm of the factual explaination is to push your POV. JDR
Wik, then mention should be made of the term, and mention should be made of what POV is being represented when the term is used. Wikipedia should educate its readers. A reader should get to read about other POVs and what words are associated with them. Kingturtle 20:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "his WordSpy quote in an attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing"". Quoting shows such a usage, if completely POV'd and only shows it. We are not interested in homicide is a POV'd term or not. I agree with you that it is not a legimate usage. It's POV and actually almost no one uses it. But the trouble is that some people use it, probably falsely and, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot help not mentioning it.
An interesting example. According to the Japanese government, Sino-Japanese War was not a war but a regional conflict. Therefore, the US has no right to intervent. Well, again they are wrong for sure but we must mention it as some political authority claimed such.
I think this is good that you started talking, instead of acting like you have some authority. What I disagree and only what I disagree is an edit war. You cannot just revert disputed edits with saying nothing. This is not about a neologim homicide bombing but the way the article is edited. -- Taku 20:51, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
For crying out loud, there are already two paragraphs about this in the article. The WordSpy quote adds nothing useful to that. --Wik 21:27, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the mention of homicide bombing is lengthly pointlessly. I have posted a new version Suicide_bombing/Temp1 with a briefer mention. My points are simply:

1. Make context clear; for instance, no one considers kamikaze as anything but suicidal. 2. Given this context, why those people come up with a different phrase.

NPOV means we must not take a side. I don't know if people like this but hope you don't get an impression the quote in this version attempts to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing", because no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing". -- Taku 22:24, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...doesnt NPOV mean that no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" is not important...that NPOV means that the opinions and desires of the people writing wikipedia are not reflected the content of the articles? OneVoice 22:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would have said:
no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" in writing this article.

It's the US government who wants to do that not we in writing NPOV articles. This is subtle but I think extremely important. We still want to let the articles reflect opinions or desires of those writing the articles and those not. But we want to do this in a manner of NPOV. Eliminating the representation of POV is highly POV. -- Taku 22:43, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Eliminating the representation of POV is highly POV."....doesnt this mean that we should cite sources and note who uses which terms? Do I misunderstand your statement? OneVoice 22:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's my point. I guess we are not communicating right. What kind of my wording gave you an impression I am against citing sources? I think quoting is important and my new revised version has one. Suicide_bombing/Temp1. Do you agree with this or not? What's bothering you?? -- Taku 02:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
Your version claims the quote is from Fleischer. It isn't. It's from WordSpy. --Wik 02:35, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
So are you saying Fleischer didn't make that statement quoted in the article? -- Taku 04:45, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
Wik is obviously correct. A quotation should not be put into the mouth of someone who didn't make it. The words quoted here are from WordSpy and not from Fleischer. Taku, your edition is wrong. Just read the link carefully. --Zero 06:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/Bush.mideast.reax/
"The president condemns this morning's homicide bombing in Jerusalem," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.
I think that settles the quesion of whether or not wordspy is accurate. →Raul654 06:53, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The problem is that the text is written as if the words in quotation marks are a direct quotation from Fleischer. As Wik keeps saying correctly, they are actually a direct quotation from WordSpy. If you don't intend to give a false impression about where the words come from, you need to rephrase the text to correct that impression. As far as I can see, that is the only issue. Maybe you are not realising that the grammar of the text implies that Fleischer used the actual words "A bombing that intentionally kills an...". Nobody questions that Fleischer used the words "homicide bombing". --Zero 07:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opps, I thought the quote was stated by the white house spokesman. So I corrected the article. Now it shouldn't give such an impression. By the way, a temporary version is not my edition or my version. So never hesitate make your edits too. -- Taku 07:46, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
I did not hesitate making edits (after reading your comment here) ... comments on it are welcomed. JDR

House demolitions

This probably deserves a separate article (which I fully expect will be bait for an edit war, sadly), but it should probably be noted somewhere that the Israelis are not the first to use house demolitions as a means of reprisal; They learned it from British forces during the Mandate, who used it on Arabs and Jews after attacks (by each side respectively). The British, in fact, went so far as to demolish much of Jenin in 1938 in reprisal for an Arab attack. -Penta 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority involvement

Any evidence to back up the insinuation that the Palestinian Authority themselves directly support suicide bombers financially? --Admbws 14:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Egyptian government involvement

"The Egyptian goverment fully supports these suicide bombing attacks, as reflected in an editorial in the Egyptian government daily newspaper Al-Masaa on 6 February 2004:

We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion...Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed – the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.

Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation. [2] "

Wouldn't this be a violation of the Camp David accords? WhisperToMe 01:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the phrase. I think that it is being put out of context, anyways. Why would they violate Camp David? Would Israel stand for that? WhisperToMe 22:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rules of war

While there may be a statistical correlation between attacks on civilians and suicide bombers (although I do not see any evidence for this) there is no necessary connection. There are plenty of examples of conventional forces attacking civilian populations in recent history, with little sanction from superiors. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that attacks directly on civilians are usually discouraged by conventional forces, and encouraged by those who sponsor/support suicide bombings. Meelar 04:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Might I suggest a change of username? The current one might make some users think you were an Internet troll.

Thanks! This is what Jimbo Wales had to say about the matter, for what it's worth - "Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best". I'll stick with my name, thanks. Now, back to the point. Wait a minute. Wasn't there a word for people who keep trying to distract us from the point? Ah yes. Suicide bombing. Not usernames at all. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Generally discouraged by conventional forces? I'm not sure that's really true, or that it's generally true of those who support suicide bombing. For example, Japanese Kamikazee bombers attacked US military targets, while the US (who did not generally use suicide bombers) destroyed at least two whole cities of Japanese civilians. Of course, there is Vietnam as well, there is a lot of evidence to suggest relatively wide use of attacks on civilians by US forces, while Viet Cong never to my knowledge attacked US civilians on a large scale. Can you substantiate your claims? Thanks, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
That's flamebait if I've ever heard it. →Raul654 04:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Really? It seemed to me that a blatently POV statement equating suicide bombing with attacks on civilians was being proposed without any evidence. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...but surely our Trolly friend is correct. Conventional, non-suicidal, military forces have frequently engaged in attacks on civilians. To move it away from US bashing, we can note the activities of the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union. And the Japanese kamikaze are certainly examples of suicide attackers who attacked military targets. There is no necessary correlation involved here. john 07:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The final sentence in his change is inaccurate based on videotapes of suicide bombers before the act. I've made a slight change to reflect that fact. - Tεxτurε 19:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"mainly arabic"? Indian suicide bomber groups have been encouraging it for years. - Tεxτurε 19:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you want to specify? I am trying to make the distinction that this has not, historically, been the case - what do you suggest? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you looking for examples of Indian suicide bombings? I don't have access atm to any references but there are some very famous ones that resulted in some good movies coming out of India. Check out the movie "Dil-Se" sometime. It is based on a true story. (But be prepared for the hokey Indian-style intermission dancing and singing.) - Tεxτurε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Also - this gives the impression that conventional forces do not engage in this, which I still dispute. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, your recent changes do indicate that conventional forces are not exempt from these activities. I think that is sufficient since this is not about conventional forces and that inclusion of your first sentence changes no longer gives the wrong impression. - Tεxτurε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

homicide bombing

May I point out, regarding the "suicide/homicide" bombing dispute that the latter term is, to the best of my knowledge, unheard of outside the United States. In fact, this article is the first reference to it that I can recall. To someone outside the U.S. and not especially familiar with U.S. media or politic life, the term "homicide bombing" seems to suggest a bombing which causes actual loss of life (not necessarily intentional, otherwise one would call it "murder bombing"), rather than merely destroying property or intended as a display of force. In any case, it completely obviates the main characteristic that differentiates a suicide bombing from other forms of delivering the ordnance.

On learning its intended use as a synonim for "suicide bombing", one wonders why should someone feel the need to invent a new term, let alone one which is inadequate for the reasons given above, for something one already has a name for.

On a different topic, the article seems to be seriously lacking in references to back any of the various assertions made in it, especially regarding the "motivations" of the persons involved. In particular, it implies that in general the suiciders follow personal moral or religious convictions and carry out their operations out of their own free will. My understanding from conversations with security personnel knowledgeable about the subject is that, at least in some operations, their actors are recruited by way of threats and blackmail, counterbalanced by the promise of looking after their families.

Also, the assertion that Arab newspapers use the expression "human bomb" any less infrequently than other media is generally wrong, as can be verified by reading or searching their websites. Of the news outlets I'm familiar with, only the English version of Al-Jazeera (which in recent years has discovered and actively exploited the potential of sensationalism) appears to use "human bomb" with any regularity (23 Google hits for "human bomber" site:aljazeera.net, against 23 for "suicide bomber" site:aljazeera.net--although a number of the latter were quotations). Other mainstream Arab media, such as Arab News (same owner as British newspaper Sharqat Al-Awsat) and Gulf News, use "suicide bomber". Note the correlation in the use of non-standard terms by sensationalist media both in the Middle East (Al-Jazeera) and North America (FOX News, as earlier mentioned by another contributor).

Lastly, in the list of countries where suicide bombings (does that preclude other forms of suicide attacks, btw?) have taken place, the United States only appears at the end of the list, between parentheses, in spite of it being the place where the most damaging suicide bombing in history has taken place. Shouldn't it be listed alongside all the other countries?

[note - new comment in response to above]
I think the "homicide bomb" term was created by the Israelis and is commonly used by Israeli politicians - more so than American ones. It was obviously chosen for political reasons -- to make the suicide bombers seem more distasteful, in response to Palestinian claims of their heroism and glorification of their deeds. Of course, it's a failure with those audiences rhetorically, and most of the rest of the world asks the legitimate question of the poster above -- why come up with another term which is so obviously redundant and ignores the one thing that makes this kind of bombing different from ordinary (homicide) bombs. The "human bomb" designation was used in a poem called "I am your human bomb" but remember this stuff is translated from Arabic so I don't know whether that is an accurate translation. Nonetheless "human bomb" is obviously more specific than "homicide bomb." --csloat 02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers

Why is so little said about the Tamil Tigers? They are credited with over 200 suicide bomb attacks since 1987. Compared with the number of attacks commited by Islamic Extremist groups which are credited with less than 100. That's a big difference, over 200 attacks from a single organization against less than 100 attacks across several organizations. --Omar 10:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Usage and related-terms

What in this section is factually disputed ? Lets fix it or remove the marker. Lance6Wins 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History

there should be a reference to Samson as the earliest testimony of a suicide attack. Winkelried may also qualify for the history section. dab 11:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Yeah, the opening paragraph doesn't seem like a NPOV to me. Phrases like "many Muslims", "Many in the Muslim world" seem to be statements plucked out of thin air, and "Martydom Operation"? Thats straight from the Hamas PR handbook! "Western term" is horribly vague and sloppy, not like an encyclopedia article. Also, would it not be appropriate to link Iraq and Palestine? Mrfixter 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link in United States as well. 19 suicide bombers on 4 airplanes killing thousands of people seems to be an event that should not be dismissed. Lance6Wins 19:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anybody reading this page, or maybe people don't care. I would like to change the introduction, but am wary due to edit wars on other pages that have the words "Israeli" and/or "Palestinian"" on them. Mrfixter 00:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this article might be too biased towards talking about muslim suicide bombers, especially if what the article says is true about the tamil tigers.

However, the most important thing I thing needs to be in this article is a discussion of why suicide bombing? Why suicide bomb instead of like suicide strafing with gunfire? In essence to me, I think bombing is very inneffective. I have never seen why explained anywhere, but my best guess is that the bomber wants to both die quickly so there is no second thoughts, and also to avoid being captured and some how converted or straying away from the right religious way, so that the reward of heaven is for naught.

I tried to fix the opening paragraph giving both sides good footing. While I prefer the pre-Nov 2nd version... I think this version could be more agreeable to both sides. Tell me what you think. 07:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suicide "bombing" or "attack"

I think this article should be moved to Suicide attack. A suicide bombing is one kind of suicide attack. The article discusses suicide attacks of the Knights Templar and the September 11 pilots, neither of whom had bombs. – Quadell (talk) (help) 18:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

In general I think you're right. However, this article should probably also be re-organized somewhat into different types of attacks. Also, it really focuses on Suicide bombings, not other things. Perhaps the non-bomb stuff should be in Suicide attacks, and it should point to this article for the stuff on Suicide bombings. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible idea. So, who's up to it? – Quadell (talk) (help) 19:49, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Was that an invitation to me? Or did you want to work on it together? Jayjg | (Talk) 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bad example

"when the Netherlands Lt. Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp to prevent being captured by Belgians."

self-destructing/scuttling your ship to prevent capture is not suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is meant to kill "the enemy" as well. - Omegatron 18:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)