By omission, do you mean to imply that bombers are NOT terrorists in the connotation of, say, Jerusalem or Baghdad or when the victims are Jews or Americans? That's the clear implication of what the truly evil people at the BBC are doing. Are you toying with that same sort of foul implication?
No I am not what I am trying to say is that the BBC has got it wrong if they thought that it would change the meaning to the man in the street by changing the word terrorist to bomber. In the UK a bomber is a terrorist whether it be IRA, Talaban, insurgents in Iraq, Palestinians or Jewish terrorists.
I think that the BBC was trying to be PC but it may placate some extremist but it will go straight over the top with the average citizen who considers a bomber a terrorist.
Tell me that I have that wrong and am simply over sensitive on this issue. But please, make it very explicit that you specifically feel Hammas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the PLO and Zarqawi's minnions are terrorists and that Israelis and American's are not "legitimate targets."
I can by your above post that you do not know me at all because of course I do not consider the above legitimate targets, all I was pointing out that language differences between UK and US on bomber certainly among the average people are different. The BBC may mean it differently but Joe public does not see a difference. When I discussed the BBC changing the wording at work last week no one could understand what the problem was because to them a bomber is a terrorist be it in London, New York or Jerusalam or Baghdad.
By substituting the word bomber and terrorist in the UK does not diminish the extent of what they do and to who they do it they are still considered by your definition a terrorist.
Also I post the dose (The Day in the Life of President Bush) on FR every Monday and Friday and the opening graphic is
That alone should tell you where I stand along with my tagline.