waterzone1, you said it perfect. A bunch of punks, lawbreakers, and idiots, yep. Terrorists not hardly. I don't know why someone would try to equate the actions of these jerks to those of the Al Quida?
I heard today on the radio news that "the 3 college students being detained for setting fire to Nine Alabama churches have been given the right to post bond. <br /><br />I wonder if the churches had been afican american churches, would the media still call them detainees?<br /><br />Anyone?...
Accused arsonists was the norm I thought.<br /><br />What does college (status) have to do with it all of a sudden? They look more like high school drop outs.<br /><br />The real point here for me is that you had to ask that question Haut.
OJ, I agree that they don't look right!......<br />The college thing points out their youth?...<br />Semantics? Accused would work, too...<br />Are you saying that it puts a terrorist spin on it by calling them detainees?.....JK
Over reacting? No, maybe not....One hears detainee alot these days....<br />I agree accused or alleged would have been a better choice of words.....<br />If they used detainee to get the terrorist spin, it didn't work on me.....JK
You could spin this around that using "detainee" is a slap in the face of the Bush Administration too . . .<br /><br />I think accused arsonists is correct as well as the use of College Students. There is always some reference to employment or some other type of label in the papers when they refer to a perp.<br /><br />Remember Rodney King was a "motorist" . . . <br /><br />Is there anybody here with Journalism training? What are the rules anyway?
<br /><br />Is there anybody here with Journalism training? What are the rules anyway? 
