Freeze Dried Political Correctness

"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

--Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)

Guidance from the Canadian Broadcast Company to its reporters and
staff in the proper and politically correct use of the language:

"Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as
a 'terrorist act' unless it's attributed. For instance, we should
refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002
as an 'attack,' not as a 'terrorist attack.' The same applies to the
Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005
and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC
prefers to call 'the Sept. 11 attacks' or some similar expression.
(The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

"By restricting outselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with
the problem of calling one incident a `terrorist act' (e.g., the
destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as,
say, a mere `bombing' (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping
mall in the Middle East)."

So goes the guidance from the confused hanky twisters north of the
border.

In the off chance that I might be able to provide a simple ray of
light to illumine this difficult topic for them, might I suggest the
following definition of terrorist: ONE WHO WILFULLY TARGETS
NONCOMBATANTS.

It is understood that the moonbat contingent will be unable to get
over the preliminary hypothesis that American soldiers, sailors,
marines and airmen do not wilfully murder schoolchildren, teenagers
in discotheques or aging pensioners sitting at sidewalk cafes but the
moonbat's punishment, ultimately, is that he has to be himself and
who really cares what he's braying about anyway?