4 ms·
Oh sure, I don't mean to validate the dehumanizing language of the military, it's just how I wrote it. At least I didn't refer to these things as being instrume
by look_lookatme 13y ago
Oh sure, I don't mean to validate the dehumanizing language of the military, it's just how I wrote it. At least I didn't refer to these things as being instruments of kinetic operations.
Not that the machines care much about that, though.
- WalterSear 13y agoNeither does the government, these days. 'To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"' http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
- eru 13y agoNo female militants?
- speeder 13y agoOf course there is, why else.Obama would explode the 67 year old grandma with a direct hit while she was at.home with her grandchildren while enjoying her flower garden? ( and yes, this actually happened )
- WalterSear 13y agoWhy indeed, Mrs. Sartre? http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/imxb8IShtoc/hqdefault.jpg http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/imxb8IShtoc/hqdefault.jpg
- sanoli 13y agoWow, I didn't know about that. That's ridiculous. I remember watching this comedy bit from Chris Rock about the end of the 'innocent bystander', and I never thought it would actually happen one day.
- Fuzzwah 13y agoThis thread reminded me of one of my favourite skits from Mitchell & Webb, Needlessly Ambiguous Terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY