> > From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/07/12 Tue PM 09:48:32 GMT > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: OT: Definitions WAS Re: London Bombing update > > In my view Bob, a "freedom fighter" is more of a paramilitary figure. One > who might bomb but would hit a target with some military or strategic value. > These ***kers bombed non-combatants on the subway/bus. Their action was > intended to cause chaos and suffering among the populace. > Whatever their political goals are, their actions make them terrorists.
Reminds me of a certain incident at a place called Wounded Knee. > While the police may be calling them bombers (which they are/were also) the > Press will certainly not refrain from using the appropriate label. > > Cory > not usually involved in political commentary but what the hell... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:34 PM > Subject: RE: London Bombing update > > > > The word 'terrorist' is very politically loaded, whereas 'bomber' is a > > plain > > statement of fact. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. > > The > > police, and the respectable press, are unlikely to use a word like > > 'terrorist' because it could prejudice the outcome of any future trial of > > the bombers (if any have survived) and their associates. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Bob > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 12 July 2005 20:11 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: London Bombing update > >> > >> Thanks for the update. > >> Interesting.... bombers not terrorists. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 7/12/2005 > > ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
