Attn. Media: Terrorism is carried out by Terrorists

[Guest slamminshaun]

There have been plenty of terrorism attacks all over the world in the past few weeks, yet the media has chosen not to assign the blame to terrorists. Here are some examples of some headlines....

"Pirates" attack U.S. cruise ship off Somalia

"Insurgents" continue violence in Baghdad

"Hooligans/Thugs" responsible for Paris attacks

"Underclass" continue rioting in France

"Pirates" attack more merchant ships off Somalia

Wake up liberals!! Acts of terrorism are, by definition, performed by "terrorists". Period. End of story. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand this? You can call them pirates, insurgents, underclass, or hooligans all you want.....but they are what they are, Muslim terrorists! You're not fooling anybody.

[Guest dirtyhouse777]

There have been plenty of terrorism attacks all over the world in the past few weeks' date=' yet the media has chosen not to assign the blame to terrorists. Here are some examples of some headlines....

"Pirates" attack U.S. cruise ship off Somalia

"Insurgents" continue violence in Baghdad

"Hooligans/Thugs" responsible for Paris attacks

"Underclass" continue rioting in France

"Pirates" attack more merchant ships off Somalia

Wake up liberals!! Acts of terrorism are, by definition, performed by "terrorists". Period. End of story. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand this? You can call them pirates, insurgents, underclass, or hooligans all you want.....but they are what they are, Muslim terrorists! You're not fooling anybody.

[/quote']

although you have a point in relations to "insurgents" and such, pirates always have been/still are problem in in areas like the phillipines, afrcica, and the indian ocean. the acts of piracy in those areas are well known, the stories just never really come out in the media. they're thieves and not terrorists. so they are in fact accurate in their description.

[Guest Spankmeister]

There have been plenty of terrorism attacks all over the world in the past few weeks' date=' yet the media has chosen not to assign the blame to terrorists. Here are some examples of some headlines....

"Pirates" attack U.S. cruise ship off Somalia

"Insurgents" continue violence in Baghdad

"Hooligans/Thugs" responsible for Paris attacks

"Underclass" continue rioting in France

"Pirates" attack more merchant ships off Somalia

Wake up liberals!! Acts of terrorism are, by definition, performed by "terrorists". Period. End of story. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand this? You can call them pirates, insurgents, underclass, or hooligans all you want.....but they are what they are, Muslim terrorists! You're not fooling anybody.

[/quote']

Shaun....

When are you going to realize that nothing you say is going to sway anybody's opinion here....You blast the "liberals", yet your posts are filled with extremist right wing bollocks...

Nothing you post is even open to healthy discussion....it is your way or no way...yet you say that you post these threads filled with excrement so people can comment on it....

I am not going to even comment on the utter ignorance of the above.

Extremist is a extremist....wheather a intolorant waste of skin that calls themselves 'patriotic' or a intolorant waste of skin that calls for jihad to capitalist pigs...same strain of disease, different bodies...

[Guest web_norah]

oh my God.

Terrorism carried out by terrorists?

what the hell is that for a title?

Cannibalism carried out by cannibals?

Arson carried out by pyromaniacs?

whats the point here again.... ???

this reads very 5th grade English.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Make fun of me all you want guys. BBC, by their own admission, refuses to refer to terrorists as...well, terrorists. This pandering to terrorists doesn't work, just ask France. I don't see what's so "extremist" about my opinion on that.

[Kamikaze1414779018]

Slammin' Shaun, Canyou please stop with the endless number of rants and posts about liberals and other political garbage.

We know where you stand, I know where I stand, but 99.9% of people on CJ don't feel the need to blast the other side every day.

Nothing against you perosnally, I don't think we have ever met, but this is a nightlife message baord, and that is what people come here for along with some other meaningless banter and humor.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Oh alright....I'll tone it down. I can only imagine how many panties are in a wad because of some of my posts. I would argue I post as much about fart jokes and lesbian cheerleaders as I do political views but somehow only seem to be remembered for the political crap....

[Guest mursa]

Yo SS , what do you call the ones who send troops to invade another sovereign country without any justification to do so ?

[Guest slamminshaun]

Yo SS , what do you call the ones who send troops to invade another sovereign country without any justification to do so ?

Sorry man, I can't participate in these types of talks any longer. I will only participate in "healthy discussions" such as animal sex, fart jokes, and beer pranks. This is a nightlife board, and nobody wants to hear about your anti-Bush views.

[Guest mursa]

Yo SS ' date=' what do you call the ones who send troops to invade another sovereign country without any justification to do so ?

[/quote']

Sorry man, I can't participate in these types of talks any longer. I will only participate in "healthy discussions" such as animal sex, fart jokes, and beer pranks. This is a nightlife board, and nobody wants to hear about your anti-Bush views.

;D thought so .

[Guest JMT]

Yo SS , what do you call the ones who send troops to invade another sovereign country...

hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Guest endymion]

Perhaps aversion to the word "terrorist" by journalists is due at least in part to the fact that the word now has no meaning. Why would a journalist use a word with no meaning?

Our administration and its supporters have used the word "terrorist" to describe everybody from Osama bin Laden to Cindy Sheehan. The word has become the modern equivalent to the McCarthy-era "communist" label. Saleen even called Michael Moore and myself "terrorists" here a few times last year. It's a politically-charged word that conveys no meaning because it's overused. No news article that uses the word could convey any meaning.

It seems to me that 'liberals' don't benefit very much from avoiding the word. It seems to me that the Bush administration benefits immensely. After Bush and Cheney told us to re-elect them because they would protect us from terrorists, they don't want us reading headlines like:

Terrorists attack U.S. cruise ship off Somalia

Terrorists continue violence in Baghdad

Terrorists responsible for Paris attacks

Terrorists continue rioting in France

Terrorists attack more merchant ships off Somalia

[Guest slamminshaun]

Finally, someone who inserts an intelligent rebuttal instead of the same ol' "you're a stupid, ignorant conservative....please stop your political posts".

I would agree, liberals don't benefit from the word, but I don't think the media is looking out for Bush...c'mon now, LOL. I think its a "politically correct" thing to do for them not to label terrorists as terrorists. Not only that, but the less the public sees the word "terrorists" in the headlines, the more they'll see the war on terrorism as something that's unnecessary.

[Guest endymion]

During McCarthy's witch hunt you couldn't go around calling people "communists" because it was an extremely incendiary term.

During Bush's 'war on terrah' you can't go around using the word "terrorist" loosely for the exact same reason.

You also won't see a lot of casual use of the word "liberal" in print lately. Same exact reason. Shaun, I submit your "Wake up liberals!!" quote from your first post in this thread as an example of the sort of meaningless hyperbole that I'm talking about.

Another example is this soldier's blog. Note how the soldier has taken to our government's tendency toward replacing the word "enemy" with "terrorist". Do a text search through that post for the word "terrorist", he uses the word excessively and it ends up losing all meaning.

[Guest slamminshaun]

I see your point about the word losing its meaning from overuse, and I think its a good point. But to replace the word "communist" with something else when referring to the system of government that the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, or Cuba is apart of is mislabeling what it is they are. I know McCarthy went overboard here at home with it, so you don't have to show me the link...

What else could I call a liberal other then a liberal? It is what it is. You are what you are. I'm constantly called something that which I am not, (Bush puppet, right-wing extremist, etc.). You were called a "terrorist" on these boards, which I think is almost laughable. The difference between you and I and alot of others, is that we are not afraid of who we are. You're on the left, I'm on the right. If the shoe fits, why is the media afraid of making you wear it? Political correctness.

[Guest endymion]

What else could I call a liberal other then a liberal? It is what it is.

"It is what it is", is like saying "I can't write down a definition for 'obscene material', but I know it when I see it". In other words, it means something to you, but it doesn't necessarily have a single objective meaning to everybody.

To you, the word "liberal" means "person who disagrees with George W Bush".

To you, the word "terrorist" means "person who takes up arms against any sort of establishment".

To me and to many people reading this, both of those words mean something entirely different than what they mean to you.

[Guest slamminshaun]

To you, the word "liberal" means "person who disagrees with George W Bush".

To you, the word "terrorist" means "person who takes up arms against any sort of establishment".

Well, if the first comment were true, then I guess I'm a liberal. There are plenty of things I have quarrels about with Bush, but plenty of things I support.

According to Dictionary.com, "terrorist" means "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism" "Terrorism" means, "the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion". It's my understanding that the "rioting" in France is politically motivated as they are trying to coerce the government into changing many of their laws. Am I missing something? Perhaps my "pirate" reference was a stretch, but, Paris is no doubt being burned by terrorists.

[Guest endymion]

By the definition that you just used, both the French and the American revolutions were "terrorism".

The administration and its supporters are very aggressively fighting a two-front war, against "terrorism" and against "liberalism". Yet both words are totally subjective and don't mean anything specific that everybody can agree on. It's suspiciously similar to the great "communist menace".

Fearmongers never use a specific, tangible fear that people can see, because then the war could be winnable and we would run out of things to be afraid of, and then where would the fearmongers be then?

[Guest web_norah]

Shaun don't be a wimp, i've given you plenty of rebuttals -don't start wussing out now that Tech is giving you even more reasoning beyond what some of us have tried to state....everyone is BORED to tears with your "Liberals yada yada yada" threads.....

[Guest slamminshaun]

Shaun don't be a wimp, i've given you plenty of rebuttals -don't start wussing out now that Tech is giving you even more reasoning beyond what some of us have tried to state....everyone is BORED to tears with your "Liberals yada yada yada" threads.....

Almost as bored as that silly picture you have as your avatar which is in ALL threads you post in, political and non-political. What makes you different? Your avatar in itself is a form of political expression, and not a flattering one at that. I make it pretty clear by the title of my threads what you'll find inside. Look or not look, post or not post, laugh, cry, get pissed, its your decision. I'm not afraid to point out the blatant misinformation I find in the mainstream press.

Tech typically gives intellectual reasoning behind his left wing views creating a stimulating debate of ideas, I wish more of you could do the same. As long as we're debating ideas I'm fine with it, but to get into this "you write at a 5th grade level", "Bush puppet", "right-wing extremist", "racist" rant whenever you can't come up with an intellectual rebuttal, it shows you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

I have never called anyone names or said anyone was ignorant on these boards simply because I don't agree with their ideas or view of the world. That respect has never been shown to me, but I could care less....I can take it. Besides that, after 12am Saturday night, I'm as liberal as the rest of you.

[Guest web_norah]

i had that avatar since before the elections and guess what, he is going nowhere..... i think it examplifies how i feel about his politics and too bad you don't like it......you had Hillary but unfortunately, she is nowhere near the clown the president is....

give it up.

Tech, Trancepriest and i are the only people here [i am talking way back when, even before you came along], who didn't support the war ...

you're a liberal, really? :

if you're a liberal why do you still watch Fox and believe in Bill O Reilly's tirades, don't tell me it is because of the graphics and big print letters...

[Guest slamminshaun]

i had that avatar since before the elections and guess what, he is going nowhere..... i think it examplifies how i feel about his politics and too bad you don't like it......you had Hillary but unfortunately, she is nowhere near the clown the president is....

give it up.

Tech, Trancepriest and i are the only people here [i am talking way back when, even before you came along], who didn't support the war ...

you're a liberal, really? :

if you're a liberal why do you still watch Fox and believe in Bill O Reilly's tirades, don't tell me it is because of the graphics and big print letters...

You guys were against it back when Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Tom Daschle flat out supported it. I applaud you for sticking to your guns from the beginning. You are one of the few and I can respect that much. At least you didn't come out with guns blazing like they did, and try to back track afterward. I still don't see how you can support those idiots given the fact that they supported the war when you did not....but that's your business.

Where did you get the idea I said I'm liberal? Oh...Tech said that I think anyone who disagree with Bush is a liberal. I said, if that's the case then I guess I'm liberal because I do disagree with some of his ideas and ways of doing things. Slow down Norah....

And by the way, I could care less about your avatar....point is, you have like 8,000 posts, so there's 8,000 times you have "exemplified how you feel" about conservatism to the rest of this board. My posts have been going on since well before the election as well. How are we any different?

[Guest dirtyhouse777]

Shaun don't be a wimp, i've given you plenty of rebuttals -don't start wussing out now that Tech is giving you even more reasoning beyond what some of us have tried to state....everyone is BORED to tears with your "Liberals yada yada yada" threads.....

:'(if they bore you and others to tears, stop reading shaun's posts :'(

[Guest slamminshaun]

Tech, Trancepriest and i are the only people here [i am talking way back when, even before you came along], who didn't support the war ...

Help me make sense of this. You've been a member of Cool Junkie since August 2003 and the war in Iraq ended four months earlier in April 2003. Plenty of people were against the war by the time August 2003 rolled around....nice try though.

[Guest JMT]

ive hung out with Shaun after midnight on the weekends, he can be pretty liberal alright.