I find this highly annoying. 'Collateral damage' is precisely what it is in military parlance, and there's no need to inject emotion-laden terms such as "civilian deaths"....unless you have an agenda.
2007-01-25 21:51:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The media seems to pick up on other military jargon when it's convenient for them such as the military abbreviation for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) known as "Gitmo". But when it comes to collateral damage, all of a sudden their approach changes....hmm, who's side are THEY on?
2007-01-25 21:52:58 · update #1
Because the media shares the "stupid marxist' idea that our troops are sadistic baby rapers, who only target women and children to terrorize, just like John Kerry told us.
2007-01-25 22:56:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Number ONE- The media is indeed biased, but not the way you think. It is owned by big corporate entities and follows their rule.
Number TWO: Military parlance has come up with all kinds of langauge "gems" and collateral damage is but one of them. "Friendly fire", the oxymoron to end all oxymorons is also military parlance. A death is a death is a death and NO parlance is going to change that!
2007-01-26 06:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
DSTR must be a stupid Marxist...... The media stopped being American a long time ago. They like most Liberals feel they are "the Chosen" as if terrorists and Bad Guys will see them just as bystanders and recorders of history and walk past them. There is a good story of this from the Vietnam war where a mad rush of Viet Cong ran through a US vanguard. As they ran through shooting everyone. The reporter jumped out of Hiding and in Vietnamese shouted "I am a Reporter, not really an American" The shot him anyway.........How many of them feel that they are Reporters and so above the fray............
2007-01-26 06:09:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The media include the combatants in the civilian deaths.
2007-01-26 07:24:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Military parlance is not emotion-laden? It actually creates an image that nothing wrong happened.
'Collateral damage'? What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.
Thank God you and your kind were kicked out of Congress.
2007-01-26 06:29:20 · answer #5 · answered by ck4829 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The media is biased, isnt it? I guess you should just stick to experiencing life directly.
2007-01-26 05:57:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They might think that it's their job to police government.
2007-01-26 06:16:32 · answer #7 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
why Does the biased neoKKKon fox , refer to bush as : "president" ?
the correct title is "retard"
if that is not an example of right - wing Propaganda what iS ?
2007-01-26 06:29:38 · answer #8 · answered by heil bushler 1 · 1⤊ 5⤋