Who is a terrorist?

Collateral damage, what a wonderful euphemism.

While i do not equate the actions of the United States military with Islamic terrorism, I do consider the likes of the Shrub and Rummy as no better than the Islamic terrorists, and they set the United States military in motion. The principle difference which i can see between the current administration and the Muslim extremists is that the latter are motivated by religious fanaticism, whereas the former simply use religious fanaticism as a tool to attain the venal ends of their wealthy cronies.

I am also having trouble appreciating the relevance of the fact that the US has homegrown terrorists.

I might understand the relevance if there was reason to believe that the US government has been remiss in the prosecution of homegrown terrorists (particularly the right-wing variety) while spending American treasure and lives in the prosecution of Islamist terrorists.

Setanta wrote:

Collateral damage, what a wonderful euphemism.

I think the same thing when I hear the word "fetus."

Quote:

While i do not equate the actions of the United States military with Islamic terrorism, I do consider the likes of the Shrub and Rummy as no better than the Islamic terrorists, and they set the United States military in motion. The principle difference which i can see between the current administration and the Muslim extremists is that the latter are motivated by religious fanaticism, whereas the former simply use religious fanaticism as a tool to attain the venal ends of their wealthy cronies.

Funny ... I don't see it that way at all.

That you do not see it that way is neither funny, nor a surprise.

By the way, you might refer to your strawman image when invoking the word "fetus" in a discussion of terrorism.

In that it suggests that those whom you oppose in debate ought to consider the word "fetus" a euphemism when the topic is terrorism, it's effect is very much that of a strawman.

Think i'll go make some coffee as well, it's likely to be a long day . . .

I consider it a euphemism along the lines of you considering "collateral damage" a euphemism.

Ticomaya wrote:

I consider it a euphemism along the lines of you considering "collateral damage" a euphemism.

You don't think that "collateral damage" is a euphemism? What would you call it, then?

<sneaks off to get some coffee, too>

I have a one-cup-at-a-time machine, so you'll need to wait just a bit longer . . .

That is an acceptable definition of a stawman, certainly, and i considered your insertion of the contention that fetus is a euphamism to be an attempt to suggest that those with whom you disagree on the subject of collateral damage are hypocrites who do not show an equal regard for a fetus, and were therefore attempting to set up a strawman.

I think they are both euphemisms for dead people/babies.

Anyone have a 12 cup machine? One cup at a time isn't gonna cut it.....

Ticomaya wrote:

I think they are both euphemisms for dead people/babies.

I think "collateral damage" is a euphemism, whereas "fetus" is a medical term. I'm sure I'm not mistaken on that one. On the other hand, I've got no clue what is considered PC in the States at the moment. Personally, I'd say I want every possible protection for unborn babies (aka the fetus), but I'm not inclined to take one of the radical sides in the "pro-life"/"pro-choice" discussion.

The only problem with that position is that fetus was in wide-spread use decades before abortion became legal in this country. Euphemism in that case is in the eye of the beholder.

Middle English, from Latin fētus, offspring.