patrick.net

curious2 says

Even that is incorrect. People started with ISIL

Washington Post started with ISIS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/06/18/isis-or-isil-the-debate-over-what-to-call-iraqs-terror-group/

NYT currently using ISIS in headline
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/world/middleeast/abd-al-rahman-mustafa-al-qaduli-isis-reported-killed-in-syria.html

Regardless of the DOD official policy, people were using both ISIS and ISIL. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/world/middleeast/islamic-state-in-iraq-and-syria-or-islamic-state-in-iraq-and-the-levant.html

The question I have is why does anybody care so much?

YesYNot says

The question I have is why does anybody care so much?

I wish that I could call that a good question, but it isn't. Whole articles have been written on it. You might like the Guardian article saying they were going to keep saying Isis despite complaints from actual people named Isis. You might not care at all about the companies named Isis that have had to change their name. And, since you seem to cling to the popular but absurd notion that religions are all the same, you might imagine no difference between Isis and ISIL, even though they are totally different theologies. But ultimately it comes down to what George Orwell wrote: if you lose the ability to speak and write clearly, then you lose the ability to think clearly. Maybe that's why you can't admit when you're wrong, and why you keep lying instead, and imagine that you can obfuscate enough to fool everyone. You can't. You can only fool the people who can't tell the difference between Isis (the ancient Egyptian goddess, namesake to people and companies around the world) and ISIL (the terrorists who would cut off your head if they got the chance). Here's a thought: give $1,000 to someone who calls herself Isis, and $1,000 to someone who calls herself ISIL, and see which one cuts off your head.

curious2 says

going to keep saying Isis despite complaints

There's a difference between Isis and ISIS, and it's unfortunate for anyone who named a company Isis. Same goes for Osama for that matter.

curious2 says

George Orwell wrote: if you lose the ability to speak and write clearly, then you lose the ability to think clearly.

ISIS is commonly accepted and 100% understood, so this quote does not apply. When I or the NYT writes ISIS, it stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It happens to be similar to the ancient Egyptian goddess. There are many words with multiple meanings. Some of us are human and can easily understand which ISIS is being referred to by the context. Others, while intelligent, seem to lack some basic interpretation skills.

Is it really a big deal?

It's like people named Jerry complaining British Government Organs, Radio, and Media keep calling the Nazis "Jerry".

Or somebody named Guy complaining about "Guy TV".

"It's not my channel!!!"

YesYNot says

The current people in power in the Islamic world are not doing the religion any favors by interpreting things the way they do.

That's an interesting point.

thunderlips11 says

Is it really a big deal?

Well, not nearly as big as murdering bloggers, or a death sentence for blasphemy, or assassinating the Governor and bombing courthouses.

It reminds me though of George Orwell's Politics and the English Language:

"Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
***
One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
***
If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

If you cannot say what you mean, then you cannot mean what you say. The same applies to all obfuscation.

Some commercial sites, e.g. the Guardian, write "Isis" without even capitalizing the whole acronym, thus maximizing confusion. The point of a name is to identify, and in the case of a military target to identify with maximum accuracy and precision. The clearest acronym might be DAIISH, as pointed out by CNN.

As for soldiers calling the Germans "Jerry", or calling the Viet Cong "Charlie", I think the context is more like gallows humor. In Platoon, Charlie Sheen played an American soldier in Viet Nam, and if the irony of fighting against "Charlie" troubled him at all, that didn't show. Anyway I tend to give soldiers risking their lives the benefit of the doubt when it comes to language, unlike armchair chickenhawks who support the draft.

curious2 says

The best might be DAIISH

Arab experts think that it is the most accurate, and ISIS-fucks prefer it. The best two are ISIS and Daesh.
ISIS is great, because it is a simple and direct acronym for English words describing the group. It is preferable to ISIL, because nobody in the US knows what Levant is, and even if they did, using it is presuming that the Islamic state might expand into a wider area. DAESH is also good, because the ISIS fucks think it is pejorative and hate it. DAIISH is more accurate than DAESH, and the ISIS fucks prefer it. But whatever. We shouldn't be trying to please them by calling them different words whenever they like it.
As far as capitalizing acronyms, I prefer to see acronyms capitalized, but I see people using lower cases for acronyms these days. It's not a big deal.

Is this the Atheist that got hacked up in the Streets. He really showed those backward heathens with his internet ridicule.

curious2 says

chickenhawks who support the draft.

What if ISIS had 20 million in a military, had taken over 90% of Europe, and had killed 20 million Americans and subjugated another 100 million in our own country. What if our military was depleted, and we could not get enough volunteers to fight ISIS. Would you prefer a draft or would you prefer to just let the rest of the country be slaughtered and subjugated?

Either you prefer the draft under bad enough circumstances, or you think that there should never be a draft under any circumstances. If you prefer the latter, you'd rather be a lamb to the slaughter. Which one are you, Curious2?

YesYNot says

What if ISIS had 20 million in a military, had taken over 90% of Europe, and had killed 20 million Americans and subjugated another 100 million in our own country. What if our military was depleted, and we could not get enough volunteers to fight ISIS. Would you prefer a draft or would you prefer to just let the rest of the country be slaughtered and subjugated?

We would use nukes well before that happens. The fear is ISIS getting nukes to take out Western cities.

YesYNot says

Which one are you, Curious2?

LOL, I'm the one who won't be fooled by your false frames and false choices. You said America "had to" draft Americans to kill and die in Viet Nam. Did you serve in the military and fight in whichever undeclared war the MIC called America (and thus you) "indispensable" to? If not, then you are a chickenhawk who supports drafting others to do what you refused to do personally.

I oppose the draft for the same reason that I oppose torture in interrogations: it doesn't work. Prior eras used the draft, and torture, and horse-drawn carriages. We use drones, psychology, and the Internet. As for your scenario of Europe getting overrun by ISIL/Daesh/DAIISH, it seems far-fetched today but the risk grows as you and other chickenhawks bleat (block that metaphor!) the MIC talking points to invade&import, as the NATO/Saudi intervention in Syria has already begun to do. They have set off a whirlwind of terror attacks increasing rapidly every year since 2010, and for no benefit whatsoever to NATO citizens: they haven't even got their gas pipeline. It didn't work, at least for NATO citizens, but it did work for the Saudis pumping angry Muslims into Europe.

curious2 says

Did you serve in the military and fight in whichever undeclared war the MIC called America (and thus you) "indispensable" to? If not, then you are a chickenhawk who supports drafting others to do what you refused to do personally.

Talk about a false frame and false choice....

curious2 says

LOL, I'm the one who won't be fooled by your false frames and false choices.

I see you are to chicken shit to answer a simple question of what circumstances if any would merit the draft in your mind. curious2 says

You said

I see you are still taking quotes out of context. At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured you just had asbergers, and couldn't understand what was written. Now, it's clear that it's just intentional lying on your part. Those quotes have been clearly explained and you keep doing it.

YesYNot says

lying

is your department, not mine. I quote, and link. As for calling me "chicken," I'm not Marty McFly, and I don't get fooled about your insistence on drafting people to kill and die in Viet Nam. More than a million people died because of what you said you "had to do" there, and more than a hundred thousand have been killed by the NATO/Saudi invade&import policy you support in Syria, and you haven't even listed which war(s) you served in. That's a chickenhawk, plain and simple, lowest breed on earth.

curious2 says

As for calling me "chicken," I'm not Marty McFly

+1 for Marty McFly reference

Hey Asperbers, here's my original post, which you never cite in its entirety, because you are a lying asshole:
In response to

anonymous says
Millennials are also wanting boots on the ground against ISIS - just not their own boots.

I said

Maybe, we'll have to resort to a draft, like we had to do back when their daddies were trying to stay out of Vietnam. That way, only poor, dark skinned, and middling people will have to die in the desert. Trump types can flat foot their way to the couch.

Clearly, the first quote is about millennials who are chickenhawks for wanting to go to war, but not wanting to fight in it. My response was to make fun of them, and also to make fun of the draft and economic situation, which made lower income (middling) and dark skinned people die more so than the Trump types. It was also a poke at Trump, which you might of noticed, I was doing a lot of.

If you don't get that, you have Aspergers, so that is what I'm going to call you from now on. I've explained all of this to you before, and you insist on linking not to the original post, but to a series of posts where you are calling me a liar while simultaneously misrepresenting what I said. At least when CIC quotes single words out of context, it is directly below the original post and anyone can see what a disingenuous tool he is. You are hiding the source through a web of your lies stretching over about 4 months.

When you first started calling me out for being pro draft, and I was asked about it, I was honest and trusting enough to explain under what conditions would make the draft seem like a good idea to me.

When asked, I also shared my opinion on women in the draft, and elaborated on how close I think we are to needing the draft now:

Thunderlips, see above. In regard to the draft, I don't think that the draft should be used at all unless there is a WWII type situation where we are in imminent danger of being invaded. The ISIS situation IMHO is less than a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 where WWII was probably an 8. If it the draft is used, able bodied women should be conscripted as well. We are past the point of looking at women as if they are a dainty flower in need of protection from everything. I have no idea about the pregnancy thing - never thought about it.

In WWII, Europe was half-way conquered, and we were attacked on our own soil. This clearly wasn't enough of a reason for you, because you continue to call me a chickenhawk even though I haven't been advocating for any intervention (another lie on your part) and directly stated that I would not support a draft in any of the interventions post WWII. I've given you opportunity to explain (like I did) under what conditions if any you would consider the draft acceptable, and you ducked the question, like the chickenshit that you are, because you are afraid to even spell out your thoughts.

There are plenty of other times when you have erroneously called me a liar.
Here, you were calling me a liar after guessing what source I used. You linked to that post as proof of me lying many more times
Here, you were lying again Aspergers. You are claiming that I got my views on the draft listening to NPR during the war, even though I was not old enough to be listening to the radio at the time. You erroneously referred to NPR as government news. You would call this a lie Aspergers, because you can't tell the difference between a typo, an honest mistake, and a lie.

I don't mind that you have Aspergers, but the combination of your Aspergers and the fact that you are a nasty obsessive person makes talking with you useless. So, I'm not going to discuss my service history or anything else with you unless you start having an honest conversation (replying to questions) and stop misquoting me and lying about what I've said.