Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 CNN - hostage-takers MSNBC - militants CBS - militants ABC - militants Fox - terrorists BBC - hostage-takers In addition to the schoolyard there is this : A female suicide bomber was detained near the headquarters. She was dressed up in a white smock. First she tried to get in the hospital building, but was scared of police and headed toward the headquarters, where she was arrested. link Reports children were shot in the back and beaten with rifles. Seems FOX is the only honest one in the whole bunch. Pathetic. The media lies and more people die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 How are you a militant if you can't fight someone capable of defending themselves? You are less than a terrorist. Targeting 6 year old naked school girls is nothing but cowardice... evil cowardice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Given that "hostage-taker" does not in any way equal "freedom fighter", as "militant" does not equal "girl scout", seems to me this is a pretty minor issue to get all worked up about and you were just looking for another way to fan out your political peacock feathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think these hostage takers are are sub-human monsters and they shouldn't be allowed to die painless deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrov Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think they tried diplomacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I don't see as how the media is "lying" but they are making choices in terminology. Do you think that by calling them "militants" or "hostage takers" the media is endorsing their actions? Even if you determine that the media has "lied" I don't see as how it has any effect on the body count, in sharp contrast to President Bush, whose outright lies have killed many many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Other side of the coin: At least no one stepped up and used the term "Freedom fighters"? http://www.arabview.com/articles.asp?article=29 http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0928-Disgrace.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Given that "hostage-taker" does not in any way equal "freedom fighter", as "militant" does not equal "girl scout", seems to me this is a pretty minor issue to get all worked up about and you were just looking for another way to fan out your political peacock feathers. hostage:a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms. These were children who were destined to be slaughtered. The were not hostages. The terrorist blow a bomb up and escape. Perhaps there is a secondary explosion that kills the people who are caring for the injured. A textbook case of terrorism. That CNN and the BBC both used the term Hostage taker is telling. How worked up am I ? You cannot tell but you couldnt pass up an attack against me as opposed to my argument. bravo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 I don't see as how the media is "lying" but they are making choices in terminology. Do you think that by calling them "militants" or "hostage takers" the media is endorsing their actions? Even if you determine that the media has "lied" I don't see as how it has any effect on the body count, in sharp contrast to President Bush, whose outright lies have killed many many people. See above definition. The media is misrepresenting the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Billcoe. My guess is that the terrorist know they are terorists. They choose to be such. Perhaps they are freedom fighters but that does not take away their terrorist status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Why don't you complain every time the news refers to "hostage takers" in Iraq as "insurgents" rather than as "terrorists"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 This reminds me of the good ol' PC euphemism wars! Lame! "Hostage-takers" is factual. They took hostages. Otherwise, why not just blow up the building outright, or shoot everyone immediately? "Terrorists" is true--they caused "terror". "Freedom-fighters" is also factual, since they probably believed they were fighting for freedom (say it with a sneer if it wasn't your freedom they were fighting for). Calling them "gardeners" or "out for a Sunday stroll" would be inaccurate and misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 I guess you are argeeing with me about media bias and wonder why sometimes I complain and others tims I do not. Of course there have been many cases of hostage taking and they are not all the same. In some cases they might be terrorists in other cases they simply are not. The case today was a perfrect case to illustrate media bias esp. when you look at the distribution of terms. That to me was the great thing about the post. Stop using bumperstickers as textbooks - war does not equal terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 This reminds me of the good ol' PC euphemism wars! Lame! "Hostage-takers" is factual. They took hostages. Otherwise, why not just blow up the building outright, or shoot everyone immediately? "Terrorists" is true--they caused "terror". "Freedom-fighters" is also factual, since they probably believed they were fighting for freedom (say it with a sneer if it wasn't your freedom they were fighting for). Calling them "gardeners" or "out for a Sunday stroll" would be inaccurate and misleading. They didn't take hostages. When the murderers told the Special Forces men that they could take some of the young children back, they had rigged the hallways to blow up. These hallways were full of children. "Why did they not blow the building up immediately?" Because it lacks the attention, news coverage and martyr points they are trying to acheive. Plus, it enabled many of the Murderers to get away. That is why they are not hostage-takers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Slothrop - You have removed all doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 (edited) Hey Mr. Semantics, what if there were no children? Would that make the situation different? Then they would just be terrorists. Even if the goal was just to lure in more victims, they were controlling and threatening something the Russians valued in order to get what they wanted. That's hostage-taking. Using that term doesn't dilute the fact that they're terrorists, too. Use whatever loaded shorthand you want, the facts are that they took hostages. PP - ? Edited September 3, 2004 by slothrop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 This one of your more silly posts PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 After doubt has been removed all that is left is certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hey Mr. Semantics, what if there were no children? Would that make the situation different? Then they would just be terrorists. Even if the goal was just to lure in more victims, they were controlling and threatening something the Russians valued in order to get what they wanted. That's hostage-taking. Using that term doesn't dilute the fact that they're terrorists, too. Use whatever loaded shorthand you want, the facts are that they took hostages. PP - ? Hostages implies that you have demands and will release your prisoners if those demands are met. THe murderers declared no demands and started killing the children without any provocation. The fact that they are children doesn't make freedom fighters into terrorists, but rather terrorists into savage murderers. Those are not semantics... they are facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Face it doobie. Your first reaction wasn't "Look at this terrible tragedy", your first reaction was "How can I score lame political points from this terrible tragedy?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think the DHS has mandated that all such bad guys be referred to as "Evildoers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Actually you are completely wrong. I of course heard of this in the am and reteadedly sought to follow the events. The media references were emailed to me this am. Again a personal attack regarding something you know little about. hmmm a pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 PP, how did the use of the words "hostage-takers" and "militants" in the Western media lead to more deaths? And please do not use the technique of second-guessing the Russian negotiators or special forces. You were not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Earth to Sloth...my post was about media bias! The conflict we are engaged in is truly a matter of life and death for many indiviuals - perhaps even us - to the extent the media lies the polity if it believe the lies are the truth will make less than optimal decisions. I never said or even implied that the references in the intial post had anything to do with the events in Russia. The history of the bias they reveal probably does impact the war in very real ways. This impact can be measured in lifes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 So the appearance of this line in a post about the events in Beslan is merely an elegant sweep of rhetoric, not meant to imply anything specific: Pathetic. The media lies and more people die. Maybe you should be more careful with your incredibly overblown generalizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.