Well, I think that in English certainly, the word suicide “attack” is broader in scope than suicide “bombing”. We've been discussing whether or not 9/11 was in fact a suicide bombing and whether it would fall within the suicide bombing aspect. I'm afraid that to the extent there was an explosion that occurred as a result, I think an argument can be made that it was a bombing—although not specifically a bomb in the sense that there was not a timer attached to it.
I guess it's a question of the policy that Parliament wishes to follow. Consider the example of a suicide attacker who does not use a suicide bomb but firearms, with the intention of killing as many people as he or she possibly can, and not blowing himself or herself up but being killed in the process by others. That would be an instance of a suicide attack that does not involve a suicide bomb.
However, I believe the intention behind this bill was to focus on suicide bombing. If I recall correctly, I think one of the organizations, for example.... I believe the term suicide “bombing” was the term that was frequently used in this bill originally and in the discussions of this bill, and so I would be inclined to try to focus on the suicide bombing aspect of that bill. I may be incorrect, but certainly my understanding is that it was the intention to focus on suicide bombing as the evil to be particularly denounced.
So I'll just leave it at that.