No, giving your life for those you know or love is an honorable act.
Rand covers the ethics of emergencies well in her book on ethics. One example she uses involves a boy scout river trip with you alone in a powered boat and your son in a canoe with several others. When the canoe overturns in rapids above a waterfall, there is little time for you to act and you see your son adrift while the others cling to the overturned canoe. .
The ethical question to be answered is ... Do you save your son and let the others perish, or do you save the others and let your son perish?
The objectivist would save his son; but the altruist would save the many ... and live unhappily ever after.
IOW, you're now claiming that a suicide bombing, or attacking others with a weapon, is not, in and of itself, evil or good. Evil or good are defined with regard to other moral considerations. What are those considerations, and what is their source?
The ethical question to be answered is ... Do you save your son and let the others perish, or do you save the others and let your son perish? The objectivist would save his son; but the altruist would save the many ... and live unhappily ever after.
This is, of course, pure crap even by Rand's standards. There are numerous problems with it.
First off, Rand's conclusion implies that the objectivist's happiness depends on the life of his son. Thus, the objectivist -- any objectivist -- is not an end in himself. Instead, the objectivist's moral end is his son. It's OK to say this -- it's consistent with the observable facts of evolution -- but it's not Objectivism.
Second, Rand is telling us that our aquatic objectivist's happiness can only be achieved if he sacrifices the lives of the other scouts to his own ends -- a strict no-no, according to Rand.
Third, Rand somehow assumes the objectivist can never again be happy if he saves the other scouts and loses his son. Once again we see that our hero's happiness is embodied in his son -- and now we understand that it is only embodied in his son, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with rational pursuits and maintenance of life.
If we were seriously applying Rand's ethics, a real objectivist would simply swim to shore and let them all drown. After all, it's not his fault those kids can't swim -- let nature take its course!
Thus, we have another, typically Randian, over-constrained situation.
As usual, Rand's conclusions are contradicted by the terms of her own philosophy. (Or perhaps you've done it for her, which would suggest that you don't understand her reasoning as well as you think you do.)