Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 But not more than once in a given day... 379900[/snapback] Of course, yesterday the only thing he said aloud was "RI Bills Fan is an idiot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 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. 379871[/snapback] In other words, "Why not go the extra mile and be subjective?" I think that question pretty much answers itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 In other words, "Why not go the extra mile and be subjective?" I think that question pretty much answers itself. 379937[/snapback] I think, in all seriousness, that it is just the BBC with it's worldwide audience. They don't want to call it a terrorist act, because Scotland Yard has not made a definite determination, and if it is a group other than the one claimed, it may not be associated with the GWOT. I think they may have learned a little from Spain's hasty proclamations. The Pundits and Government will eventually label the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 In other words, "Why not go the extra mile and be subjective?" I think that question pretty much answers itself. 379937[/snapback] How is "terrorist" subjective? Isn't that what they're doing? They aren't trying to defeat UK militarily are they? But they are trying to affect policy by scaring UK citizens (or "terrorizing" them), right? "Terrorist" is 100% accurate description of their strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we still arguing over a word? 379881[/snapback] I am, but only because I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I am, but only because I'm right. 379964[/snapback] You must attempt to harness the power of the force and focus on battles worth winning, Padwan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 especially the suicide "bombers"* *I have only used the term bombers for the purpose of brevity 379808[/snapback] Don't you mean HOMICIDE "bombers"? Now we can argue about two words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 How is "terrorist" subjective? Isn't that what they're doing? They aren't trying to defeat UK militarily are they? But they are trying to affect policy by scaring UK citizens (or "terrorizing" them), right? "Terrorist" is 100% accurate description of their strategy. 379963[/snapback] No, what they are doing is blowing sh-- up. "Terrorist" speaks to their motivation, not their actions. I mean, yes, it's extremely likely that they are, in fact, terrorists. That does not mean, however, that the word is an objective term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 This is bordering on brain death. It's not too early to start drinking, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 No, what they are doing is blowing sh-- up. "Terrorist" speaks to their motivation, not their actions. I mean, yes, it's extremely likely that they are, in fact, terrorists. That does not mean, however, that the word is an objective term. 379977[/snapback] I hate to keep being a pain in the ass, but.... the word "terrorist" speaks to their actions and their strategy, accurately in both cases. I don't see why that isn't objective. Unfortunately (for the terrorists) the word has a negative connotation because most people recognize that: 1. Their strategy involves the targetting and murder of civilians. 2. They have about a zero success rate if you take the long view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 This is bordering on brain death. It's not too early to start drinking, is it? 379978[/snapback] Pick a winner between Tom and I, and I promise I'll stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 It's not too early to start drinking, is it? 379978[/snapback] How the hell do you think I'm managing to tolerate this stupid argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 1. Their strategy involves the targetting and murder of civilians. 379980[/snapback] I think that is the crux of it. In Japan they had the Aum Shinrikyo Cult that gassed the subways. "Doomsday Cult" was more fitting than the appelation terrorist. Terror was not their goal. Killing people to precipitate the end times was. Although I think we know. We don't know for sure who did this stuff in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I think that is the crux of it. In Japan they had the Aum Shinrikyo Cultthat gassed the subways. "Doomsday Cult" was more fitting than the appelation terrorist. Terror was not their goal. Killing people to precipitate the end times was. Although I think we know. We don't know for sure who did this stuff in England. 379987[/snapback] Got a pretty damn good idea of just who is behind it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Got a pretty damn good idea of just who is behind it, though. 379989[/snapback] Probably, but there were some neo-nazis bombing nightclubs not long ago to incite violence against gays. Wouldn't a similar approach incite violence against muslims. Although unlikely, it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Although I think we know. We don't know for sure who did this stuffin England. 379987[/snapback] OK, so after we confirm that it was a Muslim group patterned after Al Qaeda, will the BBC then resume using the word "terrorist" (and retroactively change "bombers" to "terrorists" in the same online articles that they have previously retroactively altered to remove "terrorists") to describe them? I think we know they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 OK, so after we confirm that it was a Muslim group patterned after Al Qaeda, will the BBC then resume using the word "terrorist" (and retroactively change "bombers" to "terrorists" in the same online articles that they have previously retroactively altered to remove "terrorists") to describe them? I think we know they won't. 379994[/snapback] They won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 They won't. 379997[/snapback] This thread has made me wish we could go back to Gene Frenkle's crazy rants about Karl Rove and Valerie Plame from yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 This thread has made me wish we could go back to Gene Frenkle's crazy rants about Karl Rove and Valerie Plame from yesterday. 380009[/snapback] VARLIE PALEM AND AKRL ROVE BOTH ARE REPUBLICANS. RAWR BAD REPUBLICANS DIE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts