VABills Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 They are, after all, just exercising their right to free speech... 379634[/snapback] Only if they have an American flag in the case with the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 What, exactly, is the issue here? That the liberal media (i.e. the BBC) is choosing to use a LESS loaded and more objective term? 379596[/snapback] My issue is that they're ignoring the most accurate term in favor of something vague and PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 My issue is that they're ignoring the most accurate term in favor of something vague and PC. 379688[/snapback] Vague? They set off bombs. Ergo, they are bombers. Looks pretty solid to me, not a hell of a lot of wiggle room there. "Terrorist", on the other hand...that's a loaded term. Accurate,yes, but loaded. "Bombers" is merely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 TAFKAB Terrorist Artists formerly known as Bombers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 TAFKAB Terrorist Artists formerly known as Bombers 379726[/snapback] You need some unpronouncable symbol for that name? Also, the word "terrorists" is too harsh. It might hurt someone's feelings. Try "people who are displeased with the current situation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Try "people who are displeased with the current situation." 379729[/snapback] "Democrats"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You need some unpronouncable symbol for that name? Also, the word "terrorists" is too harsh. It might hurt someone's feelings. Try "people who are displeased with the current situation." 379729[/snapback] You're right. But "displeased" is too much of a value judgement. They may be happy people on the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You're right. But "displeased" is too much of a value judgement. They may be happy people on the inside. 379744[/snapback] If they are happy with the current situation, why are they bombing the sh-- out of stuff? They need to be at least "displeased" with the current situation in order to be blowing sh-- up. I thought that "displeased" was less harsh than "upset" or even "mad." You are correct that overall they may be happy people, but I still stand by my description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 If they are happy with the current situation, why are they bombing the sh-- out of stuff? They need to be at least "displeased" with the current situation in order to be blowing sh-- up. I thought that "displeased" was less harsh than "upset" or even "mad." You are correct that overall they may be happy people, but I still stand by my description. 379787[/snapback] They are happy because their bombing will get them all those virgins baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 "Democrats"? 379733[/snapback] I think that have moved beyond "displeased." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 If they are happy with the current situation, why are they bombing the sh-- out of stuff? They need to be at least "displeased" with the current situation in order to be blowing sh-- up. I thought that "displeased" was less harsh than "upset" or even "mad." You are correct that overall they may be happy people, but I still stand by my description. 379787[/snapback] Your right, as long as it doesn't hurt their esteem, I guess I'm okay with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 This is a pretty strange thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Your right, as long as it doesn't hurt their esteem, I guess I'm okay with it. 379797[/snapback] We need to protect their feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 We need to protect their feelings. 379807[/snapback] especially the suicide "bombers"* *I have only used the term bombers for the purpose of brevity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Vague? They set off bombs. Ergo, they are bombers. Looks pretty solid to me, not a hell of a lot of wiggle room there. "Terrorist", on the other hand...that's a loaded term. Accurate,yes, but loaded. "Bombers" is merely accurate. 379695[/snapback] Is that all they do? Why not go the extra mile and say "terrorist"? They're trying to change the world by "terrorizing" citizens of a country that they cannot defeat militarily. Using bombers puts us on the same level as them, which we are not. Technically, there are American "bombers" in Iraq and Afghanistan - the guys dropping the bombs from the sky during battle, but that's hardly the same as blowing up a bus, train, or plane full of civilians. There's a difference, but the media likes to pretend it doesn't exist. Heck, why not just label them "persons"? After all, they are all people. People who target civilians with bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we still arguing over a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 This is a pretty strange thread. 379798[/snapback] Well, you got one thing right today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Well, you got one thing right today... 379886[/snapback] I'm right everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we still arguing over a word? 379881[/snapback] And what else could we possibly be arguing about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I'm right everyday. 379889[/snapback] But not more than once in a given day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts