Why The Change In Discription?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286746/Four-Islamic-terrorists-planned-attack-British-soil-guns-home-bombs.html

/// Four Islamic terrorists planned attack on British soil with guns and home-made bombs ///

Recently I have noticed that the Daily Mail has ceased referring to terrorists as 'Muslim Terrorists' and now call them 'Islamic Terrorists'.

Is this tactic to be been seen as less offensive to the Muslim communities?

The Guardian however play especially safe by not mentioning their faith whatsoever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/four-discussing-terror-attack-uk

Whereas the Telegraph have choosen to call them "Four British al-Qaeda inspired fanatics"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9903497/Four-British-al-Qaeda-inspired-fanatics-face-jail-after-admitting-terror-plot.html

[FredPuli43]

Zeuhl, is not the answer that certain individuals imagine offence when no fair person could see any and, conversely, accuse others of imagining offence when no fair person could see any ?

[THECORBYLOON]

Zeuhl, I have no idea why the WWII bombers were picked as an example when Sinn Féin/IRA are obvious Christian terrorists.

[Zeuhl]

Quite so.

Or even the religious fanatics who attack abortion clinics
Or picket US military funerals claiming the deaths are a righteous god's judgement

But aog's targeting of WW2 bomber crews is positively perverse

[emmie]

it is, if that is what he meant, have no idea otherwise.