Yes, they do, but that interpretation only arose when Western ideas equally poisonous to those Mohammed provided the world were added to Islam by 20th century commentators (notably Sayyed Qutb) who had imbibed a fair dose of existentialism.
For now, any way to drive wedges into the 'ummah', to separate those Mohammedans who don't want to wage jihad from the minority who are enthusiastic about it, is useful, be it the 'religion of peace' rhetoric, or stressing the pecuiliarity of the bombers' tactic, their self-destruction.
"Homocide bomber" is redundant and serves no useful rhetorical purpose:
as I noted, bombers in general are intent on homocide, only those who have embraced the existentialist notion of self-destruction as proof of absolute commitment use their own person as a guidance-system for their bombs.
Reminding the world that these are not 'sheehads', but suicides, is a more useful tactic than the redundancy of announcing a 'homocide bomber killed 7 today' (when 'a suicide bomber killed 7 today' also communicates that homocide was committed.)
Uh, no. Homicide bomber is not redundant. Some bombers succeed (thankfully) in killing only themselves. They are bombers. But they've only killed themselves. A "bomber" may kill no one, or others, or themselves. So: homicide bomber is not redundant.
Now. I say let's concentrate on the "others" the bomber kills, not whether they kill themselves.
And your point about splitting off "reasonable" muslims by use of the term "suicide bomber"? Keep dreaming While moderate muslims dance in the streets over 9-11. While hot-selling beheading videos make the rounds. While British Imams like the ones in the article advocate these despicable acts as a noble "martydom".
No. They're gonna stop any minute, as soon as they realize they're--Koran fobid--SUICIDE bombers.
WELL WHO GIVES A DAMN WHETHER THEY DIE! They're killing OTHERS. And that, my friend, is the sticking point with me.