# suicide bomb



## Danesa

¿Cómo se llama SUICIDE BOMB en español?

Bomba suicidia
Bomba de suicidio
o ??

¿Y la persona que la lleva? 

Gracias de antemano... Este sitio es guay, es la primera vez q estoy aquí.


----------



## dul_ce

Bienvenida Danesa

Yo diría bomba suicida y la persona que la lleva es un suicida


----------



## Aviador

Hola, Danesa.

Yo creo que una bomba no puede ser suicida. Más bien, suicida es quien la porta.

En la prensa, he visto normalmente algo como "_el suicida que portaba la bomba_". No sé si haya algún término que exprese el concepto con sólo una palabra o de forma más corta.

Saludos.


----------



## alexacohen

Hola,

Bomba suicida no se usa en España, las bombas no se suicidan, los terroristas sí.

Sería un terrorista suicida armado con una bomba.


----------



## a.d.o.m.

"terrorista suicida" would suit ok to "suicide bomber" (Achmed!!!!)

I think that "suicide bomb" is the weapon which is carried by the terrorist or whoever


----------



## alexacohen

It would not make sense in Spain to say "bomba suicida".


----------



## Translator99

To avoid the political cognotations of the word "terrorista" I would call it "atacante suicida" (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter*)*


----------



## Danesa

Gracias. Veo que hay diferentes términos según él que habla. En mi lengua - que es el danés - está perfectamente correcto decir lo que se traduce a _bomba suicida_ aunque las bombas no se suicidan 
He buscado en la prensa pero no he encontrado nada fijo; quiza con la cantidad de ataques va a surgir una expresión de una sola palabra.


----------



## Sprachliebhaber

La Real Academia dice suicida: perteneciente o ralativo al suicidio, o que puede dañar al propio agente. Comprendo esto como confirmando "bomba suicida" aunque no se suicida. ¿O me equivoco?


----------



## verence

I agree with Alexacohen.

"Una bomba suicida" sería "a bomb that killes itself". No tiene sentido, se le da a la bomba la capacidad de decidir autodestruirse.


----------



## Vampiro

Translator99 said:
			
		

> To avoid the political cognotations of the word "terrorista" I would call it "atacante suicida" (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)


Ok, so lets say “a freedom fighter who use terrorism as his method”

Y las bombas no se suicidan, eso no tiene sentido, necesitarían poder de decisión para ello.
Saludos.
.


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *Translator99*
> To avoid the political cognotations of the word "terrorista" I would call it "atacante suicida" (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter)


People who use bombs to kill innocent bystanders and instill terror in the hearts of other people are terrorists, no matter if they choose to call themselves "freedom fighters" or "the army of whatever God may be".

Let's call a spade a spade, please.


> Originally posted by *Sprachliebhaber *
> La Real Academia dice suicida: perteneciente o ralativo al suicidio, o que puede dañar al propio agente. Comprendo esto como confirmando "bomba suicida" aunque no se suicida.


Una bomba nunca puede ser el agente. El agente sería la persona que acciona la bomba.


----------



## Translator99

If a suicide bomber targets civilians, I would not doubt to label it as a "terrorist act." But if he/she targets a legitime military target, such as an army post of a foreign occupator, then I would consider it an act of self defense against a foreign invader.  

For example, I think very few people would call the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WWII as "terrorists," even although their methods (technology aside) were not very different from the ones used by suicide bombers.


----------



## alexacohen

We are straying into slippery ground.

Because for the Soldiers of the Army Whatever They Wanted to Call It, the Twin Towers were a legitimate target and the attack was, under their eyes, an act of self-defence against an "invader".

Mohammed Atta was a hell of a freedom fighter for many people. That doesn't make him less of a terrorist, or a killer.


----------



## Translator99

alexacohen said:


> We are straying into slippery ground.
> 
> Because for the Soldiers of the Army Whatever They Wanted to Call It, the Twin Towers were a legitimate target and the attack was, under their eyes, an act of self-defence against an "invader".
> 
> Mohammed Atta was a hell of a freedom fighter for many people. That doesn't make him less of a terrorist, or a killer.


 
I think the distinction is plain and simple: if an attack targets civilians, it is a terrorist act. If it attacks a military target, then it is an act of war. This distinction applies whether the attack is suicide or not.

9/11 attacks were terrorist acts because they target civilians. On the other hand, a Palestinian blowing himself up at an Israel army checkpoint is a legitime act of the defense against an occupation.

Going back to my question, do you consider Japanese kamikaze pilots as terrorists?


----------



## alexacohen

Sorry.

I would like to keep all references to Israel out of this.

 I'm Jewish.

I will not take any part in this discussion anymore, and your question will remain unanswered.


----------



## Vampiro

> If a suicide bomber targets civilians, I would not doubt to label it as a "terrorist act." But if he/she targets a legitime military target, such as an army post of a foreign occupator, then I would consider it an act of self defense against a foreign invader.


 
De acuerdo con eso, pero es un terreno extremadamente delicado y la línea que separa una cosa de la otra es muy delgada. No sé si habrán estadísticas al respecto, pero por lo general quien detona una bomba rara vez lo hace contra un objetivo estrictamente militar.




> For example, I think very few people would call the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WWII as "terrorists," even although their methods (technology aside) were not very different from the ones used by suicide bombers.


 
Eso no resiste un análisis serio. Estás comparando a pilotos de un ejército, uniformados, combatiendo a cara descubierta en una guerra declarada, con el tipo que detona una bomba en un supermercado. Llamar “terroristas” a los pilotos kamikaze, denotaría como mínimo una gran ignorancia histórica de esa “very few people” que tú mencionas.

Concuerdo con Alexa “let’s call a spade a spade”. El tema no da ni siquiera para la ironía de mi primer post.

Saludos.


----------



## Tezzaluna

How about:

la bomba de un suicida?

TZMoon

*(Hi Ale!)*
*(Hi Vampi!)*


----------



## toolmanUF

Translator99 said:


> To avoid the political cognotations of the word "terrorista" I would call it "atacante suicida" (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter*)*


q

Except, when you are translating or speaking in a formal situation you do not get this luxury.

Besides, in English at least, the idea of somebody strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up innocent civilians is considered terrorism whether you support the political entity that he belongs to or not. I would imagine that it is the same in Spanish?


----------



## octoplasm

Yo lo traduciría más bien como: 

*La bomba homicida de un atacante suicida.*


----------



## Translator99

toolmanUF said:


> q
> 
> Except, when you are translating or speaking in a formal situation you do not get this luxury.
> 
> Besides, in English at least, the idea of somebody strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up innocent civilians is considered terrorism whether you support the political entity that he belongs to or not. I would imagine that it is the same in Spanish?


 
I think we are deviating from the original question. The poster was asking how to translate "suicide bomb." She was not asking whether a person committing this kind act should be considered terrorist or not, which is a different question altogheter, and which I think does not correspond to this forum.

So, from the extrict linguistic point of view, I think the best translation for "suicide bomber" is "atacante suicida" or "atacante suicida portando una bomba."

Now, if she were asking for a translation of "suicide terrorist," then I agree the best translation would be "terrorista suicida."


----------



## octoplasm

Translator99 said:


> So, from the extrict linguistic point of view, I think the best translation for "suicide bomber" is "atacante suicida" or "atacante suicida portando una bomba."



_connotation_, not _cognotation_
_strict,_ not _extrict_
_atacante suicida portando una bomba_ -->  Incorrect Spanish.  Gerunds cannot function as adjectives.


----------



## Vampiro

Translator99 said:
			
		

> I think we are deviating from the original question. The poster was asking how to translate "suicide bomb." She was not asking whether a person committing this kind act should be considered terrorist or not, which is a different question altogheter, and which I think does not correspond to this forum



Hay algo que no entiendo… ¿eres el mismo Translator99 que un par de posteos atrás hablaba de kamikazes y de freedom fighters?
Estoy de acuerdo en todo caso. El hilo ya se desvió bastante del tema original.
Saludos.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Estoy bastante seguro de que cuando en la prensa (sí, ya sé que se equivocan mucho, pero...) se refieran a la bomba de un hombre bomba, la llamarán simplemente "bomba".


----------



## Translator99

Vampiro said:


> Hay algo que no entiendo… ¿eres el mismo Translator99 que un par de posteos atrás hablaba de kamikazes y de freedom fighters?
> Estoy de acuerdo en todo caso. El hilo ya se desvió bastante del tema original.
> Saludos.


 
I just wanted to point out that a translation should be as faithful as possible to the original source, and should not be affected by the beliefs of the translator. So, if the original source does not mention the word "terrorist," the translation should not include the word "terrorista" either.


----------



## Translator99

octoplasm said:


> _connotation_, not _cognotation_
> _strict,_ not _extrict_
> _atacante suicida portando una bomba_ --> Incorrect Spanish. Gerunds cannot function as adjectives.


 
Thanks for the corrections. I don't understand the last rule, as for example, I heard this sentence in today's news:

Dos asaltantes portando armas de fuego atracaron un supermercado y se llevaron $10,000 en efectivo.


----------



## toolmanUF

Translator99 said:


> Thanks for the corrections. I don't understand the last rule, as for example, I heard this sentence in today's news:
> 
> Dos asaltantes portando armas de fuego atracaron un supermercado y se llevaron $10,000 en efectivo.



When I was learning Spanish I was taught this same rule, meaning I was told that we should say "dos asaltantes que portaban armas de fuego" but from my experiences reading Spanish and listening to it, I feel like Spanish does indeed use the "gerundio" much like English does.


----------



## Jaén

Translator99 said:


> Thanks for the corrections. I don't understand the last rule, as for example, I heard this sentence in today's news:
> 
> Dos asaltantes *portando* *armas de fuego* atracaron un supermercado y se llevaron $10,000 en efectivo.


 
El gerundio aquí no es un adjetivo. Simplemente está diciendo que en el momento del atraco los asaltantes llevaban armas de fuego. 

Para ser adjetivo tendría que decir "portadores", lo cual no se utiliza en este caso.


----------



## toolmanUF

Jaén said:


> El gerundio aquí no es un adjetivo. Simplemente está diciendo que en el momento del atraco los asaltantes llevaban armas de fuego.
> 
> Para ser adjetivo tendría que decir "portadores", lo cual no se utiliza en este caso.



Entonces, si no es adjetivo, ¿cómo se clasificaría?


----------



## Translator99

toolmanUF said:


> When I was learning Spanish I was taught this same rule, meaning I was told that we should say "dos asaltantes que portaban armas de fuego" but from my experiences reading Spanish and listening to it, I feel like Spanish does indeed use the "gerundio" much like English does.


 
I am a Spanish native speaker and I was never aware of that rule. I guess it is the same case as the English rule that one should never end a sentence with a preposition.


----------



## alexacohen

Translator99 said:


> I just wanted to point out that a translation should be as faithful as possible to the original source, and should not be affected by the beliefs of the translator. So, if the original source does not mention the word "terrorist," the translation should not include the word "terrorista" either.


This is a wrong statement. The person who opened the thread did not ask for a translation. She asked this:


> Originally posted by *Danesa*
> ¿Cómo se llama SUICIDE BOMB en español?
> 
> *¿Y la persona que la lleva? *


La persona que la lleva, en España, se llama terrorista suicida.


----------



## verence

toolmanUF said:


> Entonces, si no es adjetivo, ¿cómo se clasificaría?


"Dos asaltantes [que estaban] portando armas de fuego..."

La forma correcta (estrictamente hablando) de redactarlo sería "Dos asaltantes, portando armas de fuego, ...", pero ya se ha extendido muchísimo el uso sin las comas.


----------



## speedier

Translator99 said:


> If a suicide bomber targets .................. an army post of a foreign occupator, then I would consider it an act of self defense ......................


 
Hi Translator99,
An interesting and novel idea.  If you ever open a school of self-defence, perhaps you should make sure your pupils pay up front.


----------

