First of all, there was no bad faith. Second, you have not been making that distinction in your comments. Also, the claim that the Iranian government are terrorist scumbags is your personal opinion. A lot of people consider the Israelis to also be worthy of this term due to their actions in Gaza and against Palestinians in general. Some people even consider Americans to be terrorists. Most importantly, however, my objection was not so much to the phrase "terrorist scumbags" as it was to the term "durka," which is a racial slur specifically aimed at Arabs. It is no different than making a comment using the "N" word to refer to African Americans. Please tell me why I should let your slur slide while no one would have any problems with me taking someone to task for using the other.
Please note that I am not commenting on who is right and who is wrong. I'm also not stating agreement with any side of the argument. I am saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa. 250 years ago, George Washington and the Continental Army were considered terrorists by England. 150 years ago, the southern states considered the northern states to be terrorists and vice versa. 85 years ago, the US government imprisoned American citizens of Japanese descent in prison camps due to fears of terrorism. 60 years ago, African Americans and others standing up for civil rights were considered terrorists. As recently as 35 years ago, the terrorists were in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least according to the US government. In all of these examples, history made the final determination many years after the fact, and that determination was made largely by the victors. Who is or is not a terrorist at any given moment is up for debate.
More importantly, however, is what all of these examples also have in common, and that is the derogatory slurs that came into use during each of those points in history. They weren't acceptable then; they aren't acceptable now, and that is NOT up for debate.
