☪ Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, it's a Muslim. Again. ☪

It appears that @Diogenes doesn't know what "indiscriminant" means.


Perhaps you meant "indiscriminate"?

"Indiscriminant" is not a standard word in English, though it is sometimes used incorrectly or informally as a misspelling or variation of "indiscriminate." The correct and widely accepted term is "indiscriminate."

Here’s the clarification:

  • Indiscriminate (adjective):
    • Meaning: Done or acting without careful judgment or distinction; random or haphazard. It implies a lack of discrimination, care, or selectivity.
    • Examples:
      • "The bombing was indiscriminate, killing civilians and soldiers alike."
      • "He made indiscriminate cuts to the budget without considering the consequences."
    • Usage: This is the standard, correct term in English, recognized by dictionaries like Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster.
  • Indiscriminant:
    • This is not a recognized word in standard English dictionaries. It appears occasionally in informal writing, older texts, or as a typo, but it is considered nonstandard or incorrect.
    • Some sources (e.g., Wiktionary or historical texts) might list "indiscriminant" as an archaic or rare variant, but it is not used in modern English and should be avoided in formal or accurate communication.

Why the Confusion?
  • The confusion likely stems from the similarity between "indiscriminate" and other words ending in "-ant" (e.g., "dominant," "resistant"). However, "indiscriminate" is derived from "discriminate" (to make distinctions), with the prefix "in-" (not) and the suffix "-ate" (indicating an adjective). "Indiscriminant" incorrectly replaces "-ate" with "-ant," which is not consistent with English word formation in this case.

Evidence from Sources:
  • Dictionaries: Major English dictionaries (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary) list "indiscriminate" as the correct term and do not recognize "indiscriminant" as a valid word.
 
Good a place as any. :dunno:
Sure- Assange published video of similar atrocities in Iraq and the perps were never punished.
Go for it, yanqui- anybody with a stick-like object is a legitimate target.
The world loves Americans.
 
But dey wuzn't bombs! Dere wuzn't no Afghan homes hit! I duzn't believe dey wuz in Afghanistan!
Perhaps the IBD dude is posing as a discriminant by refusing the accepted definition of a bomb.

It seems he will hide in mouse-holes in order to cover his ass.


Haw, haw...............................................haw.
 
Perhaps the IBD dude is posing as a discriminant by refusing the accepted definition of a bomb.

It seems he will hide in mouse-holes in order to cover his ass.


Haw, haw...............................................haw.


Haw, haw...............................................haw.
 

If it wasn't clear what I was saying originally, I'm clarifying now and the offer stands.
 
I'll restate the question for you because you need several times before your restricted uptake fully "gets it" ...

What bombing (and not any direct fire) has occurred in Afghanistan over the last 20 years?

When gunships hit targets, they aren't bombing; they are engaging in direct fire. Airstrikes are also direct fire and are thus not bombing.

Specify the bombing.
Interestingly, there are all kinds of references to Israel bombing Gaza, despite the fact that there was no discernable "indiscriminate" bombing.
 
Back
Top