The question is, why clamour for more dramatic language when its quite clear that the words used adequately communicate the situation, in the first place? Your outrage won't make the world a more peaceful place - those who skillfully use language to de-escalate, do however. If only that skill were more widespread, we might actually have diplomatic solutions to this problem...

It's not outrage to point out that it's a war. It's not dramatic to state what it is, that it's a war. And if you think there's a diplomatic solution here possible only through "softer" language, then you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years, or even just in the past year. We didn't fuck this up. Putin did. He wanted to start a war and he did. It had nothing to do with language used.

Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary? Whats your intention behind tone-policing people to be more violent in their language when discussing Russia's aggression?

Nobody said it wasn't a war. The whole world knows its a war. The only ones clamouring to make it more of a war, are the ones who stand to profit from yet more, endless war. Is that your intent? If so, consider this: we've had 30 years of this kind of rhetoric, from both sides.

We, who do not profit from this war in any way, would benefit from better language being used - by everyone.

> Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary?

Both sides of this discussion seem unnecessary and loaded. It’s obviously a war. That shouldn’t need to be said. But once said, it shouldn’t be so vigorously fought.

Where is the claim being made that it isn't a war?

So, nowhere in this article or in any of the discussion so far, by any participant - in a completely unrelated article on Al Jazeera .. got it ..