I know. I remember the whole issue. That is why I would like them to refer to them as terrosits.
"Terrorist bombing" does NOT reflect murder.
Isn't a terrorist a murderer? I think so. They go after civilians.
Personally, I prefer the term terrorist to put them in perspective in the public's mind. Terrorist associates them to the likes of Bin Laden. Murderer would associate them to the likes of Scott Peterson, to take a current example.
Thanks!
Becki
Problem is that they are also "civilians". They're not the military personel of a foreign government. Warfare is reverting, IMO, to the way it was for most of history: Civilian group against civilian group, klan against klan, one race against another, religion against religion. family against family, Hatfields against McCoys, etc. The State is losing it's monopoly on warfare. Army against Army may again become a small player in the overall picture of warfare in the 21st century.