No, I totally agree with you Bob. Actually the serious point that underlies my smartass question is this: if truth and other high values on which civilised society depends are to have credible meaning, does it not mean it is imperative that all men and women of sensitivity stay on rigorous guard against the depradation of debased language? In particular, loaded value judgements should be resisted unless thay are clear and overt. For example, in my personal system of belief, when the IRA blow up defenceless people without regard to their creed, colour, beliefs or even basic humanity, they are performing an act of irredeemable evil and the term murderer is the only fitting one to use. Conversely, when the UK government sends marksmen to shoot down Irish civilians on the rock of Gibralter in cold blood, in my view they too are committing callous murder. There is no escape from the language. There must be no escape. When a Palestinian kills and maims other human beings, it is an abhorrent act that should be denounced as murder; when Israeli agents or armed forces perform the same illegal acts it should carry exactly the same label.

Personally, I also feel the evil done by states is always more reprehensible still, because they owe, through the custodianship of power, a greater duty of care to all those living within the ambit of the exercise of such power. Which is just where I hoped to challenge some interesting discussion...