While "bombers" should generally be enough given that there is usually context, there are organizations that go to great pains to cause damage to buildings and infrastructure without killing or injuring anyone, making "homicide bombers" a valid albeit not-often-necessary distinction.I answered:
My view is that if "homicide bombers" were necessary,And then I wondered:
the term would have been invented long ago -- not just
recently and just in reaction to one political wing's
objection to "[something else]-icide bombers."
Was I historically accurate? Why hadn't I looked this up before?
So I did. LexisNexis makes it a little harder than it should be, returning hits when a story says something like "homicides and bombings," but I could find no references to homicide bombers or homicide bombings before Sept. 11, 2001.