“homicide bomber,” a neo-speak expression coined by the Sharon government in Israel to try to cast the Palestinians responsible for such attacks in the worst possible light.”
—

These monsters blew up 109 innocent people at mosques in order to try to start a civil war because peace and democracy is a future in which they don’t see themselves.

Please tell me how you put this in a “good” light?

Palestinians would, in that conflict, and some Iraqis as well–they call them “martyrs,” and they are seen very positively among the people they fight with and for. When the U.S. bombed Tokyo, Americans cheered, though the bombings were primarily against the civilian population to demoralize them, and countless thousands of civilians died. Were the airmen on those planes “homicide bombers”? Depends on the context, I suppose. We made those men heroes. Simply because they fight against us doesn’t mean no one else sees them in a different light.

The point is, they’re neo-speaking, the right-wing version of political correctness. Just as stupid–and “homicide bomber” is redundant to boot. When someone shoots another person, do you call thyem a “homicide shooter”? Is a serial killer a “homicide serial killer”? Of course not. “Homicide” is implicit in “bomber” in this context. “Suicide bomber” is correct because it marks the difference that this person blew him/herself up with the victims, instead of leaving the scene before the bomb was triggered or otherwise went off.

The interesting thing about the word “homocide” is
that all it means really is the killing (usually illegaly)
of a human being. This would include Murder,
(first, second, third degree) manslaughter (again in shades
of degree). There is justifiable homocide (self defense, for example)…abortion kills a human, but is not illegal.
Suicide itself is Homocide. I believe it is illegal in most states.
Perhaps Sharon and his neocon agents in the U.S,
and Fox News think that instead of saying
“suicide” bomber; if they use the term “homocide”
they divert attention from the apparant fanatic
devotion of the enemy to strike back at them.
One who merely plants a time bomb and gets away
unharmed can be portrayed as cowardly etc…
whereas someone who blows him or herself up
along with their target is difficult to paint
as a coward. Crazy perhaps, but no coward….
and even spinning them as “crazy” has its drawbacks.
i.e. “not guilty by reason of insanity” perhaps!
Perhaps the spin doctors at Fox can be put to work
coining new names for the various killing devices…
homocide mine instead of antipersonel mine, an anti
tank missile could be renamed “tankicide” missile,
the bunker buster bomb could be dubbed the bunkicide
bomb etc etc. All in all though, I think the
Sharon/Fox newspeak is bunk that has bombed…
no one else uses the silly term.