This entry was posted on November 10, 2010 at 8:31 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It may just be me, but, it seems that the BBC and France24 stomp all US news networks to bits (this comparison does not include 10:00am EST to 12:00 EST on MSNBC ).
jwe3, Maybe it is that “wierd” thing. When I watch European news, they have FAR fewer commercials and really get down and dirty on a subject. Participants don’t interupt eachother as much and there is more concentration on substance. Their “junk” talk seems more in the newsprint domain than on the airways. Anyway, I like it, so there.
I will admit I have never seen France24, so you may be right about that organization.
The BBC destroyed its own credibility during the Iraq War by refusing to accurately report on the terrorists and on Saddam Hussein.
They took their objectivity to an absurd level, and they reported on the war as though they had no interest in the outcome. In the real world, there are good guys and bad guys.
I admit that sometimes the good guys cross the line, but they are then held accountable.
Overall, the BBC’s reporting reveals that it has bought into the notion that the West is inherently corrupt. That is a popular liberal feeling, but it is also total crap.
Let’s see how they report on the idiot students in London protesting tuition hikes under the organization of the unions.
jwe3, France24 is far more pragmatic than the BBC. They are known for political balance with the good and the bad from each prospective. They videotape and release an English version which is a compacted release of regular programing. My French friends send me what they think that I would enjoy. When I get a chance, I’ll go in and retrieve the site and post for you to get a taste.
<The BBC destroyed its own credibility during the Iraq War by refusing to accurately report on the terrorists and on Saddam Hussein.
I’m going to ask you to explain this comment, then let others debate it, because I need to stay away from this topic – and this computer – for a few days. What say you?
Old example on the Gulf oil spill. This is from the English speaking division and is not a true “for France” release, though, I am told that the words are verbatum from the French:
They called Saddam Hussein “the former president or deposed president”, never accurately depicting him as a dictator who ruthlessly murdered his own citizens.
In my opinion, the portrayed Iraq as a place where everyday life was ok (not great, but certainly not repressive and deplorable) until the allied forces invaded.
I watch it plenty, Fred. But since I don’t have the same opinion as you I must not watch it, right? Of course you know that how? And, I think (my opinion) you took jwe’s statement out of context to support your own opinion – when I read jwe’s complete statement he does not say they were “fair & balanced”.
They called Saddam Hussein “the former president or deposed president”, never accurately depicting him as a dictator who ruthlessly murdered his own citizens.
That seems a little nitpicky. Nobody in the West was under any allusions about what Saddam’s reign consisted of in Iraq. Constantly referring to him as “dictator” would have seemed patronizing to me if I was watching, kinda like when Fox trots out “homicide bomber”. Uh, I know what a bomb does, thanks. In a news report, “president” or “deposed leader” are accurate descriptions. Everybody knew what kind of president he was. You’re looking for a problem that isn’t there. Ok-bye.
Joe, I respectfully disagree. The tenor of the BBC’s coverage always portrayed the war as wrongheaded and unjust. It’s a fair opinion and worthy of debate, but this opinion bled over into their news coverage.
BBC commands some of the same respect that Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and Walter Kronkite had in their eras. All eventually became known as avowed liberals.
The media is simply a business that attracts that political persuasion, for whatever reason, and the BBC is no different from NPR in that respect.
jwe3, I contend that the BBC and NPR are from the same mold. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Still, the BBC is enjoyable and very watchable, just like PBS or listening to the BBC and NPR.
I still prefer France23, especially compared to reading Le Mond.
…kinda like when Fox trots out “homicide bomber”. Uh, I know what a bomb does, thanks.
Oooh, Joe… no, buddy, no.
Bomber vs. Homicide Bomber
A “bomber” seeks to blow things up, a “homicide bomber” seeks to blow people up. Every “homicide bomber” is a “bomber,” but not every “bomber” is a “homicide bomber.”
It is still terrorism is someone blows up an empty building, home, or automobile… but very different than someone who puts a bomb in a mall with the intention of killing people.
Oh please, the phrase is “suicide bomber”, which acuurately describes the event of somebody blowing themselves up in order to blow a lot of other people up. “Homicide bomber” is a hyperbolic, patronizing phrase that literally means “murder bomber”. Duh. Everybody effin knows what a suicide bomber is trying to do. We don’t have to have “murder” spoonfed to us.
^ Right… but a “homicide bomber” isn’t necessarily a “suicide bomber.”
You can set bombs with the intent of killing people, but not kill yourself! Additionally, some “suicide bombers,” don’t (or didn’t) try to kill other people, only to kill themselves in protest.
It’s an accurate classification of terrorist bomber, Joe.
I thought the Obama administration was going to restore respect for science? Look what AP just found.
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Dina Cappiello, Associated Press – 24 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Interior Department’s inspector general says the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new drilling.
I’m surprised AP reported on it. This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon
l&j, So, the Right has more than adequite representation on this site. Poor joe, somewhere on the left, and then there is me, somewhere else. Sounds like a rather nice party to me.
I am assuming that icn2 swears that he is in the middle and everyone swears that they only speak the truth. Sounds like the House of Representatives.
L&J: The change seems pretty minor but what the heck if it gets Ken Salazar fired and replaced by a real environmentalist I’m all for it. I’m sure Darrell Issa will conduct a full investigation before recommending Obama be impeached.
“This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon”
A draft of the proposed debt commission report just came out and it gores everybody’s ox.
I can’t wait to hear what politicians & pundits have to say; although I can see them cherry picking the items they want and not commenting on the ones that bite them.
Personally (although I’ve only skimmed the highlights) I like it – a lot.
-This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon-
Based only upon what I know at this time, if that statement is true then it means all six of the administrations between Nixon’s and Obama’s have been… angelic.
If you want to get stupid accurate about it, it’s “suicide murder bomber”. News reports about a bunch of people killed by a suicide bomber don’t need the extra word to explain the intent of the bomber, what with the bodies laying around and all.
Bush dreamt up the nonsensical “homicide bomber” to sound super-tough, and super-we-hate-terrorists-more FNC still uses it.
Yeah, Joe, you sound like you took that extra step off the high dive, and there’s no water in the pool.
A suicide bomber is a person who kills himself with a bomb. You can blow yourself up in a marketplace and fail to kill anyone else in the process. However, if that bombing results in the death of one other person, as a matter of law, it is no longer just a suicide.
Blah blah blah..my point is that you accused BBC of being biased because they didn’t use hyperbolic language in reference to Saddam, and I used another example of same to argue it. The bottom line for this ridiculous conversation is that whoever thought up “homicide bomber” is an idiot who thought “suicide bomber” wasn’t clear enough.
Let me understand this correctly: we are going to body check, pardon me, have “enhanced pat downs” of airline pilots to make sure they don’t bring in a knife or other objects onto the aircraft.
But after passing this test we allow them to fly high speed missile-like objects loaded with jet fuel over heavily populated cities?
Anyone who detonates explosives with no regard for innocent casualties is a terrorist. Perhaps these citizens were nationalist terrorists or sectarian terrorists. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
jwe3, Reasonable approach, though, I’m not convinced that these people or even most of the world would necessarily agree with you. Bottom line: I accept your intention but question the uniform use of the term. By your definition, there would be some allied soldiers included in your meaning and that is absurd (a bomber drops a bomb on a village; a soldier fired a granade into a house, etc. silly examples, but, that is how others would see it – wrong, of course, but true).
jwe3, But of course, though I am not so sure that the majority of this planet would agree with you. Still, legally, you are correct.
By this logic, a soldier that turns on his own is not a criminal, but is subject to war crime activity (Ft Hood)? Additionally, if a uniformed Afgan or Iraqi attacks Americans, is that also subject to being a war crime?
-if a uniformed Afgan or Iraqi attacks Americans, is that also subject to being a war crime?-
Not necessarily. That could simply be “an act of war” if those actioned were sanctioned by his or her government. If those acts constituted a “war crime” as defined by the Geneva Convention, he or she would be a ‘war criminal” if convicted (and not properly adjudicated by his or her own government for some other serious charge. That same act could be construed as “terrorism” if his or her country did not sanction hostilities (Ft Hood). That is, Iraq is not at war with USA, thus an Iraqi soldier attacking Americans could be deemed a “terrorist act” (and arguably not subject to Geneva Convention requirements.) Complicated.
The term “Homicide Bomber” actually makes more sense to me, not that I really care one way or the other. “Suicide” implies the primary purpose is to kill one’s self while “homicide” implies the purpose is to kill another.
What’s stupid about “homicide bomber” is that it’s redundant. It implies that there’s a significant number of bombings not intended to kill people, which is ludicrous. A “bomber” is somebody or something intended to kill others. A “suicide bomber” is someone intending to take themselves with the victim. “Homicide bomber” leaves out the delineation of whether the bomber offed himself, too. But it like, sounds really rad, so let’s change it.
al, Very well stated. I can fully appreciate your position, though, I am not convinced that everyone will agree with your clarity. Anyway, I do like your thinking style, Clear, precise and straight to the issue. Nice.
Hmmm… except for the “really rad” part, Joe is making some sense here.
Still, Latin suicidium “to kill oneself” as opposed to homicidium,/i> “to (cut) or kill human being”, intentionally or otherwise. Yeah, homicide bomber appears technically correct but Joe’s English language interpretation contains better logic. I’m conceding the “win” to Joe. Idiot.
I love the BBC but I have to admit it is biased. It was unfairly portraying the Tea Partiers. Some current BBC journalists admit there is a problem with bias. Even a frequent guest accused them of that.
Other than that, it is a wonderful service. Barely any fluff to deal with.
Also, some in the UK have said BBC World News is less biased than BBC News Channel, which none of us receive unless if you’re in the UK.
The interesting thing about the BBC is that they frequently substitute ‘terrorist’ with ‘Islamist’. And when they don’t substitute with ‘Islamist’ they use ‘militant’ only, which obviously bothers some people.
“The interesting thing about the BBC is that they frequently substitute ‘terrorist’ with ‘Islamist’. And when they don’t substitute with ‘Islamist’ they use ‘militant’ only, which obviously bothers some people.”
That’s an interesting point. The thing about the BBC is they try to be absolutely neutral. In the US most of the media refer to someone or a group as terrorist based on the US political position. But on the BBC they might call a group like Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers a freedom fighters, militants some such label so as to not pick a side in a dispute. To someone on the right in the US this would appear to be showing a bias.
In the US many politicians perform back-flips trying to avoid terms such as “Islamists”. It is a more precise word and certainly not more neutral.
American English and British English are not the same. The UK (and Europe in general) has a significant Muslim problem that is totally absent in the US and this experience colours their language. While “militant” can fondly remind some in the US of civil rights era demonstrators, there is no such linkage in the Queen’s English.
^Blue: That was my point. when you try to be absolutely unbiased you appear biased to people on both sides. The BBC is nothing if not politically correct.
^ Honestly, this notion of non-bias in the media gets me pretty upset. Not because of bias… let’s face it, we’re all human, we’ve all got out biases. It’s this notion that somehow journalists are better than that. They’re not.
In my experience, most journalists have a real hard time with criticism (especially from folks they’ve determined aren’t of their same stature), and get positively irate when you suggest bias. If more journalists were able to say, “Look, I have my own opinions and beliefs, and I’m going to try to keep that out of my reporting, and if you think I’m doing a poor job let me know,” then they’d come across as more human, less arrogant, and less condescending to their audience.
Instead, most journalists brush you off at the first suggestion of bias or un-fairness… like the notion is completely beneath them. And the harder they deny, the less likely they are to try to do a fairer job in their reporting, and the more biased they actually become.
Your right blue but much of the perception of bias of journalists is based on the viewers POV and on what news outlet they work for.
Take Major Garrett for example; when he was on FNC the perception by many on the left was that he was a right-winger touting the FNC line and his reports were suspect. Now he appears on MSNBC and we on the left say he was freed from the yoke of FOX oppression, but many FNC viewers see him as a closet liberal. In truth the quality of his reporting is the same on both networks; excellent and informative.
^ Except for a couple of mild statements that I doubt he would have uttered while still with FNC, I don’t see any difference in Major Garrett’s reporting. He’s no longer in the White House Press Corp and that, itself, makes things seem slightly different.
November 10, 2010 at 8:36 am
It may just be me, but, it seems that the BBC and France24 stomp all US news networks to bits (this comparison does not include 10:00am EST to 12:00 EST on MSNBC
).
November 10, 2010 at 8:54 am
Let this post serve as official confirmation that, yes fredorth, it is JUST you.
November 10, 2010 at 9:07 am
jwe3, Maybe it is that “wierd” thing. When I watch European news, they have FAR fewer commercials and really get down and dirty on a subject. Participants don’t interupt eachother as much and there is more concentration on substance. Their “junk” talk seems more in the newsprint domain than on the airways. Anyway, I like it, so there.
November 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
I will admit I have never seen France24, so you may be right about that organization.
The BBC destroyed its own credibility during the Iraq War by refusing to accurately report on the terrorists and on Saddam Hussein.
They took their objectivity to an absurd level, and they reported on the war as though they had no interest in the outcome. In the real world, there are good guys and bad guys.
I admit that sometimes the good guys cross the line, but they are then held accountable.
Overall, the BBC’s reporting reveals that it has bought into the notion that the West is inherently corrupt. That is a popular liberal feeling, but it is also total crap.
Let’s see how they report on the idiot students in London protesting tuition hikes under the organization of the unions.
November 10, 2010 at 9:24 am
“Let’s see how they report on the idiot students in London protesting tuition hikes under the organization of the unions.”
I imagine they will be fair & balanced.
November 10, 2010 at 9:26 am
jwe3, France24 is far more pragmatic than the BBC. They are known for political balance with the good and the bad from each prospective. They videotape and release an English version which is a compacted release of regular programing. My French friends send me what they think that I would enjoy. When I get a chance, I’ll go in and retrieve the site and post for you to get a taste.
November 10, 2010 at 9:28 am
jwe3, Should add that I lived a year in Europe (Berlin) and simply got used to the way that they do the news.
November 10, 2010 at 9:38 am
<The BBC destroyed its own credibility during the Iraq War by refusing to accurately report on the terrorists and on Saddam Hussein.
I’m going to ask you to explain this comment, then let others debate it, because I need to stay away from this topic – and this computer – for a few days. What say you?
November 10, 2010 at 9:40 am
Old example on the Gulf oil spill. This is from the English speaking division and is not a true “for France” release, though, I am told that the words are verbatum from the French:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100916-en-reporters-BP-Louisiana-oil-Deepwater-petrol-dispersants-silence-contracts-control-Kaufman-Arneson
November 10, 2010 at 9:41 am
fritz3: “I imagine they will be fair & balanced.
” Since when has the BBC been fair and balanced? Maybe in your dreams but not in mine!
November 10, 2010 at 9:47 am
A bit of current culture. Again, it’s the English version (with ad in French – there are more ads on the net than there are on French TV)
http://www.france24.com/en/20101109-francois-ozon-potiche-catherine-deneuve-gerard-depardieu-french-70s
November 10, 2010 at 9:52 am
BBC refused to call terrorists “terrorists”
They called Saddam Hussein “the former president or deposed president”, never accurately depicting him as a dictator who ruthlessly murdered his own citizens.
In my opinion, the portrayed Iraq as a place where everyday life was ok (not great, but certainly not repressive and deplorable) until the allied forces invaded.
November 10, 2010 at 9:53 am
“Since when has the BBC been fair and balanced? Maybe in your dreams but not in mine!”
jwe said it best.> “They took their objectivity to an absurd level,”
The BBC is nothing if not balanced. If you ever watched it you would know that.
November 10, 2010 at 10:04 am
I watch it plenty, Fred. But since I don’t have the same opinion as you I must not watch it, right? Of course you know that how? And, I think (my opinion) you took jwe’s statement out of context to support your own opinion – when I read jwe’s complete statement he does not say they were “fair & balanced”.
November 10, 2010 at 10:10 am
It’s Fritz not Fred. I wouldn’t want Fred to be tarred with my comments.
November 10, 2010 at 10:15 am
Bless you fritz.
November 10, 2010 at 10:26 am
They called Saddam Hussein “the former president or deposed president”, never accurately depicting him as a dictator who ruthlessly murdered his own citizens.
That seems a little nitpicky. Nobody in the West was under any allusions about what Saddam’s reign consisted of in Iraq. Constantly referring to him as “dictator” would have seemed patronizing to me if I was watching, kinda like when Fox trots out “homicide bomber”. Uh, I know what a bomb does, thanks. In a news report, “president” or “deposed leader” are accurate descriptions. Everybody knew what kind of president he was. You’re looking for a problem that isn’t there. Ok-bye.
November 10, 2010 at 10:32 am
Joe, I respectfully disagree. The tenor of the BBC’s coverage always portrayed the war as wrongheaded and unjust. It’s a fair opinion and worthy of debate, but this opinion bled over into their news coverage.
BBC commands some of the same respect that Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and Walter Kronkite had in their eras. All eventually became known as avowed liberals.
The media is simply a business that attracts that political persuasion, for whatever reason, and the BBC is no different from NPR in that respect.
November 10, 2010 at 10:42 am
jwe3, I contend that the BBC and NPR are from the same mold. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Still, the BBC is enjoyable and very watchable, just like PBS or listening to the BBC and NPR.
I still prefer France23, especially compared to reading Le Mond.
November 10, 2010 at 11:03 am
joeremi Says:
November 10, 2010 at 10:26 am
…kinda like when Fox trots out “homicide bomber”. Uh, I know what a bomb does, thanks.
Oooh, Joe… no, buddy, no.
Bomber vs. Homicide Bomber
A “bomber” seeks to blow things up, a “homicide bomber” seeks to blow people up. Every “homicide bomber” is a “bomber,” but not every “bomber” is a “homicide bomber.”
It is still terrorism is someone blows up an empty building, home, or automobile… but very different than someone who puts a bomb in a mall with the intention of killing people.
November 10, 2010 at 11:34 am
LA Times Reports, and NYT confirms, Lou Dobbs has signed a deal to host show on Fox Business Network.
November 10, 2010 at 11:35 am
My apologies, Fred.
November 10, 2010 at 11:36 am
Oh please, the phrase is “suicide bomber”, which acuurately describes the event of somebody blowing themselves up in order to blow a lot of other people up. “Homicide bomber” is a hyperbolic, patronizing phrase that literally means “murder bomber”. Duh. Everybody effin knows what a suicide bomber is trying to do. We don’t have to have “murder” spoonfed to us.
November 10, 2010 at 11:44 am
^ Right… but a “homicide bomber” isn’t necessarily a “suicide bomber.”
You can set bombs with the intent of killing people, but not kill yourself! Additionally, some “suicide bombers,” don’t (or didn’t) try to kill other people, only to kill themselves in protest.
It’s an accurate classification of terrorist bomber, Joe.
November 10, 2010 at 11:45 am
FBN is starting to get serious about prime time. Lou Dobbs, Judge Napolitano, and apparently Eric Bolling will still have a show.
November 10, 2010 at 11:56 am
I thought the Obama administration was going to restore respect for science? Look what AP just found.
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Dina Cappiello, Associated Press – 24 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Interior Department’s inspector general says the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new drilling.
I’m surprised AP reported on it. This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon
November 10, 2010 at 12:13 pm
l&j, So, the Right has more than adequite representation on this site. Poor joe, somewhere on the left, and then there is me, somewhere else. Sounds like a rather nice party to me.
I am assuming that icn2 swears that he is in the middle and everyone swears that they only speak the truth. Sounds like the House of Representatives.
November 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm
L&J: The change seems pretty minor but what the heck if it gets Ken Salazar fired and replaced by a real environmentalist I’m all for it. I’m sure Darrell Issa will conduct a full investigation before recommending Obama be impeached.
“This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon”
A bit of a reach but it’s your comment.
November 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Lou Dobbs –now part of the POWER TO PROSPER TEAM. Welcome Lou to FBN. The channel that crushed CNBC on election night.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/11/lou-dobbs-joining-fox-business-network.html
November 10, 2010 at 12:29 pm
A draft of the proposed debt commission report just came out and it gores everybody’s ox.
I can’t wait to hear what politicians & pundits have to say; although I can see them cherry picking the items they want and not commenting on the ones that bite them.
Personally (although I’ve only skimmed the highlights) I like it – a lot.
November 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm
-This is the most corrupt administration since Nixon-
Based only upon what I know at this time, if that statement is true then it means all six of the administrations between Nixon’s and Obama’s have been… angelic.
November 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm
If you want to get stupid accurate about it, it’s “suicide murder bomber”. News reports about a bunch of people killed by a suicide bomber don’t need the extra word to explain the intent of the bomber, what with the bodies laying around and all.
Bush dreamt up the nonsensical “homicide bomber” to sound super-tough, and super-we-hate-terrorists-more FNC still uses it.
November 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“Bush dreamt up the nonsensical “homicide bomber” to sound super-tough, and super-we-hate-terrorists-more FNC still uses it.”
Joe has absolutely lost it.
November 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm
There are references to ‘homicide bomber’ or ‘homicide bombing’ that go back to 1998 and earlier.
November 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, Joe, you sound like you took that extra step off the high dive, and there’s no water in the pool.
A suicide bomber is a person who kills himself with a bomb. You can blow yourself up in a marketplace and fail to kill anyone else in the process. However, if that bombing results in the death of one other person, as a matter of law, it is no longer just a suicide.
November 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm
All in all, I still consider the phrase “most corrupt Administration since Nixon” pathetically absurd. Totally devoid of merit.
November 10, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Blah blah blah..my point is that you accused BBC of being biased because they didn’t use hyperbolic language in reference to Saddam, and I used another example of same to argue it. The bottom line for this ridiculous conversation is that whoever thought up “homicide bomber” is an idiot who thought “suicide bomber” wasn’t clear enough.
November 10, 2010 at 2:13 pm
It’s not hyperbolic to call Saddam a dictator, it’s accurate.
It’s not hyperbolic to call the terrorists in Iraq terrorists, it’s accurate.
November 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Let me understand this correctly: we are going to body check, pardon me, have “enhanced pat downs” of airline pilots to make sure they don’t bring in a knife or other objects onto the aircraft.
But after passing this test we allow them to fly high speed missile-like objects loaded with jet fuel over heavily populated cities?
I blame Bush.
A twofer post.
November 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm
jwe3, Agreed on Saddam, not that clear on Iraqi citizens. Some were terrorists and some, maybe most, were nationalists or sectarian.
November 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Anyone who detonates explosives with no regard for innocent casualties is a terrorist. Perhaps these citizens were nationalist terrorists or sectarian terrorists. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
November 10, 2010 at 3:01 pm
jwe3, Reasonable approach, though, I’m not convinced that these people or even most of the world would necessarily agree with you. Bottom line: I accept your intention but question the uniform use of the term. By your definition, there would be some allied soldiers included in your meaning and that is absurd (a bomber drops a bomb on a village; a soldier fired a granade into a house, etc. silly examples, but, that is how others would see it – wrong, of course, but true).
November 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Actually, I would say any soldier in uniform cannot be a terrorist. They can be war criminals, but not terrorists.
November 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
jwe3, But of course, though I am not so sure that the majority of this planet would agree with you. Still, legally, you are correct.
By this logic, a soldier that turns on his own is not a criminal, but is subject to war crime activity (Ft Hood)? Additionally, if a uniformed Afgan or Iraqi attacks Americans, is that also subject to being a war crime?
November 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm
-if a uniformed Afgan or Iraqi attacks Americans, is that also subject to being a war crime?-
Not necessarily. That could simply be “an act of war” if those actioned were sanctioned by his or her government. If those acts constituted a “war crime” as defined by the Geneva Convention, he or she would be a ‘war criminal” if convicted (and not properly adjudicated by his or her own government for some other serious charge. That same act could be construed as “terrorism” if his or her country did not sanction hostilities (Ft Hood). That is, Iraq is not at war with USA, thus an Iraqi soldier attacking Americans could be deemed a “terrorist act” (and arguably not subject to Geneva Convention requirements.) Complicated.
The term “Homicide Bomber” actually makes more sense to me, not that I really care one way or the other. “Suicide” implies the primary purpose is to kill one’s self while “homicide” implies the purpose is to kill another.
November 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm
What’s stupid about “homicide bomber” is that it’s redundant. It implies that there’s a significant number of bombings not intended to kill people, which is ludicrous. A “bomber” is somebody or something intended to kill others. A “suicide bomber” is someone intending to take themselves with the victim. “Homicide bomber” leaves out the delineation of whether the bomber offed himself, too. But it like, sounds really rad, so let’s change it.
November 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm
al, Very well stated. I can fully appreciate your position, though, I am not convinced that everyone will agree with your clarity. Anyway, I do like your thinking style, Clear, precise and straight to the issue. Nice.
November 10, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hmmm… except for the “really rad” part, Joe is making some sense here.
Still, Latin suicidium “to kill oneself” as opposed to homicidium,/i> “to (cut) or kill human being”, intentionally or otherwise. Yeah, homicide bomber appears technically correct but Joe’s English language interpretation contains better logic. I’m conceding the “win” to Joe. Idiot.
November 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The jerk is right..I’m right. And if you don’t agree with him, you’re a racist, h0m0ph0bic..JERKophobe!
November 10, 2010 at 7:43 pm
A little cancer-talk to lighten the mood.
Miss Manners And the Big C
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/12/hitchens-201012
November 10, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Did I really debate “homicide bomber”? I realize my Bush rant was out of control, but at least it was ABOUT something. This was pathetic. Never mind.
November 10, 2010 at 11:04 pm
^ This was in-control and unbiased logic, and well-played. Enjoy the deserved win and shut the ‘ell up aboot it, Idiot.
November 10, 2010 at 11:43 pm
I love the BBC but I have to admit it is biased. It was unfairly portraying the Tea Partiers. Some current BBC journalists admit there is a problem with bias. Even a frequent guest accused them of that.
Other than that, it is a wonderful service. Barely any fluff to deal with.
Also, some in the UK have said BBC World News is less biased than BBC News Channel, which none of us receive unless if you’re in the UK.
The interesting thing about the BBC is that they frequently substitute ‘terrorist’ with ‘Islamist’. And when they don’t substitute with ‘Islamist’ they use ‘militant’ only, which obviously bothers some people.
November 11, 2010 at 6:01 am
“The interesting thing about the BBC is that they frequently substitute ‘terrorist’ with ‘Islamist’. And when they don’t substitute with ‘Islamist’ they use ‘militant’ only, which obviously bothers some people.”
That’s an interesting point. The thing about the BBC is they try to be absolutely neutral. In the US most of the media refer to someone or a group as terrorist based on the US political position. But on the BBC they might call a group like Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers a freedom fighters, militants some such label so as to not pick a side in a dispute. To someone on the right in the US this would appear to be showing a bias.
November 11, 2010 at 6:04 am
^should read> …militants or some such…
November 11, 2010 at 7:52 am
Ahem… old news…
BBC report finds bias within corporation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554749/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
November 11, 2010 at 8:10 am
-absolutely neutral-
In the US many politicians perform back-flips trying to avoid terms such as “Islamists”. It is a more precise word and certainly not more neutral.
American English and British English are not the same. The UK (and Europe in general) has a significant Muslim problem that is totally absent in the US and this experience colours their language. While “militant” can fondly remind some in the US of civil rights era demonstrators, there is no such linkage in the Queen’s English.
November 11, 2010 at 8:30 am
^Blue: That was my point. when you try to be absolutely unbiased you appear biased to people on both sides. The BBC is nothing if not politically correct.
November 11, 2010 at 8:38 am
^ Honestly, this notion of non-bias in the media gets me pretty upset. Not because of bias… let’s face it, we’re all human, we’ve all got out biases. It’s this notion that somehow journalists are better than that. They’re not.
In my experience, most journalists have a real hard time with criticism (especially from folks they’ve determined aren’t of their same stature), and get positively irate when you suggest bias. If more journalists were able to say, “Look, I have my own opinions and beliefs, and I’m going to try to keep that out of my reporting, and if you think I’m doing a poor job let me know,” then they’d come across as more human, less arrogant, and less condescending to their audience.
Instead, most journalists brush you off at the first suggestion of bias or un-fairness… like the notion is completely beneath them. And the harder they deny, the less likely they are to try to do a fairer job in their reporting, and the more biased they actually become.
November 11, 2010 at 8:58 am
Your right blue but much of the perception of bias of journalists is based on the viewers POV and on what news outlet they work for.
Take Major Garrett for example; when he was on FNC the perception by many on the left was that he was a right-winger touting the FNC line and his reports were suspect. Now he appears on MSNBC and we on the left say he was freed from the yoke of FOX oppression, but many FNC viewers see him as a closet liberal. In truth the quality of his reporting is the same on both networks; excellent and informative.
November 11, 2010 at 11:26 am
^ Except for a couple of mild statements that I doubt he would have uttered while still with FNC, I don’t see any difference in Major Garrett’s reporting. He’s no longer in the White House Press Corp and that, itself, makes things seem slightly different.