> I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to

> I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events. I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism The most interesting article in those results is the following: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison. It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.