I thought we were discussing the story "Huge Explosion Rocks U.N. Headquarters in Iraq". When you casually referred to the Reuters piece I didn't go back to check the source of that story to cofirm it was Reuters. I didn't realize that you were discussing something completely different from two years ago.

This seems like a new topic to me, but an interesting one that I have something to say about.

I can respect the position of some news outlets to avoid the use of the word "terrorist". Personally, I prefer a simple definition of the word that is easily testable. In fact, my definition puts the US firmly in the terrorist camp, because of things we did in the second world war, Kosovo, GWI, etc. That is, deliberately targeting non-military targets where civilians would certainly be killed. By this definition, the guy that did the UN was a terrorist, no dispute about it.

But a news source is free to -- and in fact must -- consider the feelings of their readers. The word terrorist can be seen as a pronouncement that the side that is supported by the terrorists has no moral standing, and is the undisputable bad guy in the situation. A strict interpretation would have the bad guys winning world war II (except that the real bad guys fit the definition more closely - unrestricted submarine warfare, death camps, etc.). Tom may be quite comfortable to consign all Palestinians to hell because of the suicide bombers, but Reuters has to consider a larger readership than Tom and his buddies.

It's all politics, though. If you can catch your "pro-choice" opponent in a statement that is clearly pro-abortion, then it is considered a coup, and vice versa. In this case, a news source's unwillingness to use the term "terrorism" is a cool tool to "work the ref" and extort the press to give the right special treatment.