CNN will cease using the word "terrorist"

[WriterDom]

Instead they will use the more politically correct term "alleged hijackers"

Damn, I'm so fucking proud to be a liberal.

 

[LadyTabitha]

"Alleged hijackers?"

Next they'll be calling rapists "Alleged sex offenders"

They're friggin terrorists. End of story.

 

[Natalie Nessus]

 

[miles]

So......

What do you expect from the alleged media?

 

[Mischka]

Where did you get the information, WD? I just read the cover article at cnn.com, and they used the term terrorist at least four times, in conjunction with bid Laden and terrorist cells. From what I gathered, they are using the term "suspected hijackers" to differentiate the suicide terrorists that the government is attempting to get more information about. Most of them used several aliases, and I bet the use of "suspected" is an attempt not to smear an innocent person's name that coincides with one of the aliases.

 

[WriterDom]

Where did you get the information, WD? I just read the cover article at cnn.com, and they used the term terrorist at least four times, in conjunction with bid Laden and terrorist cells. From what I gathered, they are using the term "suspected hijackers" to differentiate the suicide terrorists that the government is attempting to get more information about. Most of them used several aliases, and I bet the use of "suspected" is an attempt not to smear an innocent person's name that coincides with one of the aliases.

It's been reported. You don't really think it would be picked up by the wire services do you? I guess the proof will be tomorrow when people tune in.

 

[Sephiroth]

This political correctness crap has gone way too far.

 

[Mischka]

It's been reported. You don't really think it would be picked up by the wire services do you? I guess the proof will be tomorrow when people tune in.

It's been reported at ____? CNN's cable channel and the website don't always mesh, but at least the website seems to be continuing with the use of "terrorist." I have no problem with calling the cowards that hijacked the planes hijackers instead of terrorists, since it differentiates them from the general terrorist network and possibly helps with confirming their identity.

 

[sigh]

Instead they will use the more politically correct term "alleged hijackers"

Damn, I'm so fucking proud to be a liberal.

i have to wonder why you assume liberals would be in favor of this, or even behind it? more likely it's cnn's lawyers in their $4000 suits and lexus suv's worried over lawsuits...or maybe by burying the word "terror" they hope to revive the stock market and recoup some of the hundreds of thousands they've lost

why is it that extremist-conservatives believe they have an inside edge on loving america?

still love that flying cock of yours

 

[XXplorher]

Lame.


This is the problem with our paused (on the surface) reaction. People are letting it settle, and scaling back. Let's upgrade......

DEATH MONGERS!! Kill em all!!!

 

[shadowsource]

Re: Re: CNN will cease using the word "terrorist"

why is it that extremist-conservatives believe they have an inside edge on loving america?

They're terribly insecure about soooo many things. I suspect this is all about the fact that the feds aren't certain that the names they've been putting forth are in fact the correct names of the hijackers, so Suspect X, who may be home flying planes in Riyadh (as one named dead terrorist has already proved to be), is an alleged hijacker, as opposed to a terrorist or a dead terrorist. Put simply, they don't know who all of these people were.

 

[Guest]

DEATH MONGERS!! Kill em all!!!

Am I the only one to chuckle at the irony of that statement?

 

[shadowsource]

So far you're the only troll to be so amused -

Am I the only one to chuckle at the irony of that statement?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I know mistakes are made but they should have acknowledged it instead of quietly fading the story - puts their credibility in doubt. How many other things do they get wrong?

Credibility? The news media? Surely you jest?

They are reporting "alledged" hijackers because someone (probably in their legal department) finally pointed out to them that they didn't know for sure who the hijackers were, or what their true identities were. A lawsuit in the making. Sure there were terrorists, but which people in the plane were the terrorists and what their true identities were, we may never know. But the news media didn't let that get in the way of reporting the "news".

 

[Angel]

Am I the only one to chuckle at the irony of that statement?

I thought the Irony was the point.

 

[p_p_man]

"Alleged hijackers?"

Next they'll be calling rapists "Alleged sex offenders"

They're friggin terrorists. End of story.

Until proven guilty.

I've read and heard of hundreds of arrests all over the world of people alleged to have links with bin Laden but very few, if any, charges being made.

 

[Calamity Jane]

yup yup

Until proven guilty.

That would be one reason i love this damn country. Using the word alleged protects more than just the media... it protects the 'alleged hijacker/terrorist/rapist'. I find it hard to believe that any of you would enjoy seeing the name of a friend or relative printed in the paper, saying that they were a rapist (or whatever) instead of 'alleged rapist'... as long as it's alleged, you have a right to prove your innocence.

 

[Laurel]

Re: yup yup

That would be one reason i love this damn country. Using the word alleged protects more than just the media... it protects the 'alleged hijacker/terrorist/rapist'. I find it hard to believe that any of you would enjoy seeing the name of a friend or relative printed in the paper, saying that they were a rapist (or whatever) instead of 'alleged rapist'... as long as it's alleged, you have a right to prove your innocence.

Amen. Amazing how in while in the grip of patriotic fervor, so many are quick to trample on the very principles that make this country great.

How many calls for censorship have been put out by public figures this week? How many calls for illegal wire taps and other unConstitutional measures? How many elected officials making grabs for power beyond their Constitutional & legal limits? How many opponents of Freedom are out there exploiting the deaths of Americans - taking advantage of the tragedy to push their personal agendas, to violate the Constitution?

If we give up our natural rights - Innocent until Proven Guilty, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly - in the wake of this disaster, then Osama wins. If he can make us act like the Taliban instead of like Americans, then we all lose.

 

[shadowsource]

Lest we forget -

If we give up our natural rights - Innocent until Proven Guilty, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly - in the wake of this disaster, then Osama wins. If he can make us act like the Taliban instead of like Americans, then we all lose.

Falwell would be most delighted!

 

[Problem Child]

It's easier to say than
backwardsassignorantdeludedmurderingpowerhungrymisguidedcocksuckinganimalisticdoingevilinthenameof
religioncowardlypiecesofcamelshit, no?

 

[XXplorher]

Am I the only one to chuckle at the irony of that statement?

Does that mean you got the irony?
(Ooops - I see Angel already pointed that out. Yummy - someone SAW it!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Satisfaction.)

 

[XXplorher]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pagancowgirl
That would be one reason i love this damn country. Using the word alleged protects more than just the media... it protects the 'alleged hijacker/terrorist/rapist'. I find it hard to believe that any of you would enjoy seeing the name of a friend or relative printed in the paper, saying that they were a rapist (or whatever) instead of 'alleged rapist'... as long as it's alleged, you have a right to prove your innocence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Laurel:

Amen. Amazing how in while in the grip of patriotic fervor, so many are quick to trample on the very principles that make this country great.



*shudder*..............

No. I wont even go there.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

How many opponents of Freedom are out there exploiting the deaths of Americans - taking advantage of the tragedy to push their personal agendas, to violate the Constitution?

If we give up our natural rights - Innocent until Proven Guilty, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly - in the wake of this disaster, then Osama wins. If he can make us act like the Taliban instead of like Americans, then we all lose.

I think you're being unfair, Laurel. To be sure these proposed measures restrict personal freedoms, but they stand to do great benefit for the public good. Does making it easier to wiretap people, conduct searches and seizures, and so forth makes us like the Taliban? LOL. The idea is absurd. Go take a look at Problem Child's thread on the Taliban and see if there's any resemblance.

The historical facts are clear. In every war restriction of personal freedoms occurs as a sacrifice for the good of the whole. The rationale for a limited curtailing of personal freedoms is that when threatened by outside forces (in this case terrorists), our personal freedoms are so gravely threatened that actions curtailing our freedoms in favor of security are less grievous than preserving the freedoms at the expense of security. What good were civil rights to people living in the World Trade Center? As an occasional passenger on airlines I happily discard my personal freedoms in favor of measures to protect my life and those of others.

The fallacy I see in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the security measures is that there's an idea that there will be some sort of slippery slope toward tyrrany. The people who are advocating these measures you find so distasteful aren't "exploiting the deaths of Americans" because of some diabolical hatred of personal freedom. Do you really see them as Taliban members?? Their intent is to take pragmatic steps to protect all of us against terrorism. Obviously these measures would be excessive in peace-time, but as they say, "desperate times call for desperate measures".

As I've posted on this topic before, the greatest leaders in American history have curtailed civil rights in times of Crisis. FDR did it in WWII, Lincoln in the Civil War. Although academics still take these Presidents to task for their actions, our leaders have obviously acted out of what they regarded was in the best interests of the country and their success has, in a sense, justiftied their actions in the eyes of history.

I suspect the same will happen in this case. People will bemoan their loss of civil rights (as well they should), but lives will be saved and America will prevail. In the end the threat will be eliminated and restrictions on civil rights will be relaxed. It's how it's always happened before. Why should we expect different now?

When we look back on this thing we'll probably wince and regret some of the things we've done, but on the whole we'll look back on all this as a regrettable but mostly necessary undertaking.

All we have to do is win.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I think you're being unfair, Laurel. To be sure these proposed measures restrict personal freedoms, but they stand to do great benefit for the public good.

That is always the mantra for restricting freedoms isn't it? "Do it for the public good" - the mantra of all totalitarian regimes.

Does making it easier to wiretap people, conduct searches and seizures, and so forth makes us like the Taliban?

It makes us more like them yes, and it puts in place the tools to make us worse in some ways.

The historical facts are clear. In every war restriction of personal freedoms occurs as a sacrifice for the good of the whole.

So maybe we should start putting Moslems in camps too? Hey it worked in WWII why not now?

The people who are advocating these measures you find so distasteful aren't "exploiting the deaths of Americans" because of some diabolical hatred of personal freedom. Do you really see them as Taliban members?? Their intent is to take pragmatic steps to protect all of us against terrorism. Obviously these measures would be excessive in peace-time, but as they say, "desperate times call for desperate measures".

I see them as people pushing their own agenda (the acquisition of power to their own ends). Their intent is not good but evil.

As for "desparate measures" - where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Everytime some pol wants to take away our freedoms; the "war on poverty" required desparate measures - people were going hungry, staying illiterate, living in ghettos and many were dying. The "war on drugs", people were dying from drugs, ruining their lives, producing crack babies, etc.

Oh the horror! We must do something! Desparate times require desparate measures! It will only be for a little time until we win the "war". Yeah right.

All we have to do is win.

Not at any cost we don't.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I agree with you that the word "war" is being used incorrectly here. Wars are conducted between sovereign powers. Terrorism (as I see it) are acts of violence and intimidation by individuals or groups of individuals for the purposes of instilling fear in a larger and more powerful majority.

But don't be mistaken, Laurel. Just because we're not fighting an organized state doesn't delegitimize the administration's authority on this issue. If anything, the nature of a "conflict" (which I'm forced to call this situation for lack of a better term) of this kind in which the enemy is in our midst and lives an unfettered American life makes this conflict more, not less ripe for increasing homeland security measures.

These people obviously hate us more than I can conceive of. Even with my rather Hobbesian view of the human condition, I was shocked by the cold hate of this act. Still as horrific as this attack was, there are far worse threats to our security than flying planes. Should there be biological or chemical weapons used in this conflict, I'm going to have to be exposed. If they were to release smallpox or anthrax on the city of New Orleans physicians would have to choose between treating the victims and risking exposure to horrible and extremely communicative diseases and turning tail in interest of our own personal safety.

I don't regard that prospect to be a very representive of "freedom" no matter how many of my Constitutional rights are preserved.