Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 What you think those guys did that on purpose? 378846[/snapback] Actually, he's right. Had the strike from England been routed through France, the approach to the target would have been from a different direction. Since they had to fly way the hell out into the Atlantic and approach from the west, they ended up flying over a civilain neighborhood to strike their intended target...and that neighborhood happened to contain the French embassy, and one of the bombs happened to fall short... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Actually, he's right. Had the strike from England been routed through France, the approach to the target would have been from a different direction. Since they had to fly way the hell out into the Atlantic and approach from the west, they ended up flying over a civilain neighborhood to strike their intended target...and that neighborhood happened to contain the French embassy, and one of the bombs happened to fall short... 378951[/snapback] Pity, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Pity, that. 378997[/snapback] There is a certain karmic element to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You are misreading my post. My point was that if coalition forces follow Bill's plan then they would be deliberately targetting civilians. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in the original post. 378545[/snapback] Although I am not all that comfortable with being portrayed as the "mad bomber of TBD", you may of course do so at your will. I stand by my posting. I am thinking that many muslims are secretly (or even openly) cheering when our people are murdered. By this, I mean that I suspect a great deal of them applaud the carnage that the terrorists inflict, not just a few. Very often, you make reference to being "better" than the terrorists. This is a good angle/train of thought if one's goal is to leave things at status quo, and every so often cart away the dead bodies of our innocent civilians, police officers and firefighters. This obviously, is not what I am about. The people (again, I am of the opinion that there is a truly high percentage) in Middle Eastern countries who cheer our slaughter are not high on my list of concerns. Can you feel it? I DO feel a great deal of pity for the Iraqis lining up to be police officers and getting their asses blown off by fellow muslims. Those who perpetrate these attrocities come from SOMEWHERE, right? At some point, this "somewhere" just may have to be taken out for the greater good. Jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Although I am not all that comfortable with being portrayed as the "mad bomber of TBD", you may of course do so at your will. I stand by my posting. I am thinking that many muslims are secretly (or even openly) cheering when our people are murdered. By this, I mean that I suspect a great deal of them applaud the carnage that the terrorists inflict, not just a few. Very often, you make reference to being "better" than the terrorists. This is a good angle/train of thought if one's goal is to leave things at status quo, and every so often cart away the dead bodies of our innocent civilians, police officers and firefighters. This obviously, is not what I am about. The people (again, I am of the opinion that there is a truly high percentage) in Middle Eastern countries who cheer our slaughter are not high on my list of concerns. Can you feel it? I DO feel a great deal of pity for the Iraqis lining up to be police officers and getting their asses blown off by fellow muslims. Those who perpetrate these attrocities come from SOMEWHERE, right? At some point, this "somewhere" just may have to be taken out for the greater good. Jmo. 379243[/snapback] I don't really think I was misinterpreting your views. If I was, I apologize. Yes, those who are slaughtering Iraqi civilians do have to come from somewhere (although at least some of them may well be Iraqi), but I don't think killing civilians in Syria, Iran, wherever, will help the situation. As I said, the current theory on the London bombers seems to be that they were British born. If that turns out to be the case, then where exactly do you bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I don't really think I was misinterpreting your views. If I was, I apologize. Yes, those who are slaughtering Iraqi civilians do have to come from somewhere (although at least some of them may well be Iraqi), but I don't think killing civilians in Syria, Iran, wherever, will help the situation. As I said, the current theory on the London TERRORISTS seems to be that they were British born. If that turns out to be the case, then where exactly do you bomb? 379454[/snapback] Corrections due to the fact that you must be taking your lead from the BBC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 As I said, the current theory on the London bombers seems to be that they were British born. If that turns out to be the case, then where exactly do you bomb? 379454[/snapback] Well...they're looking up in Yorkshire now. If you bombed Yorkshire, would anyone really miss it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Corrections due to the fact that you must be taking your lead from the BBC... 379499[/snapback] Good grief! Do you honestly believe that I would object to calling them terrorists? I humbly apologize for my poor choice of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Good grief! Do you honestly believe that I would object to calling them terrorists? I humbly apologize for my poor choice of words. 379515[/snapback] Yeah, the weapons they used weren't bombs, so they can't possibly be called "bombers." They are to be described only as "terrorists." Stick to the approved lingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Yeah, the weapons they used weren't bombs, so they can't possibly be called "bombers." They are to be described only as "terrorists." Stick to the approved lingo! 379523[/snapback] I believe the point is that BBC is "sticking to the approved lingo." Rather than use the word terrorist, which has such a negative connotation, it's best to go with something innocuous like "bombers" which labels them only by what they did (and not what they are) so the media can't be blamed for passing judgement or taking sides in the war. And thank goodness for that. The worst part about the BBC and most of the mainstream media over here is not that they can't differentiate between us and the terrorists; it's that they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I believe the point is that BBC is "sticking to the approved lingo." Rather than use the word terrorist, which has such a negative connotation, it's best to go with something innocuous like "bombers" which labels them only by what they did (and not what they are) so the media can't be blamed for passing judgement or taking sides in the war. And thank goodness for that. The worst part about the BBC and most of the mainstream media over here is not that they can't differentiate between us and the terrorists; it's that they don't want to. 379535[/snapback] "Bombers" is innocuous?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we really arguing over the choice of words? He didn't call them florists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we really arguing over the choice of words? He didn't call them florists. 379572[/snapback] Yes, they are arguing over the difference between bombers and terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 "Bombers" is innocuous?! 379568[/snapback] Obviously the BBC thinks so or they wouldn't be retroactively changing the word "terrorist" on their website in all the first reports on the bombings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Yes, they are arguing over the difference between bombers and terrorists. 379573[/snapback] I don't mind. Give our piss-poor media a pass for the small things and they'll take a pass on all the big things they get wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Obviously the BBC thinks so or they wouldn't be retroactively changing the word "terrorist" on their website in all the first reports on the bombings. 379580[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Are we really arguing over the choice of words? He didn't call them florists. 379572[/snapback] Maybe we can get to a point where we all agree that "Civilian Collateral Demolition Artist." is the preferred term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Maybe we can get to a point where we all agree that "Civilian Collateral Demolition Artist." is the preferred term. 379601[/snapback] Not PC enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Not PC enough. 379612[/snapback] Democracy challenged individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Maybe we can get to a point where we all agree that "Civilian Collateral Demolition Artist." is the preferred term. 379601[/snapback] They are, after all, just exercising their right to free speech... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts