Isn't the correct term "captured" for military personnel taken alive in the course of combat?
2007-05-19 13:54:56 · 7 answers · asked by oimwoomwio 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You are correct.
However--the Bush administration has presented the war in Iraq as a battle against terrorists and sectarians who seek to disrupt their effrots to establish "democracy." In short--the insurgents are cast as criminals, and the term "kidnapped" fits that line of arguement.
In fact, whatever terrorist/sectarian overtones there are (and they're real enough, granted) this is primarily a COUNTER-insurgency--a war of resistance against a foreign invader and the puppet regime that has been set up--one that (given the fact that 3/4 of the Iraqi people wants us gone, and half of them support attacks against Americans and the Iraqi "government") clearly enjoys broad support from the people. Whether or not you agree with that view--its how the Iraqi people see iit. And in that view, the insurgents are a more or less recogmizeable resistance army--and the term "captured" would fit.
But do you expect Bush to admit--even indirectly--that his war is actually for the purpose of suppressing a people fighting to get their country back?
2007-05-19 14:18:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because 'kidnapped' is a very emotive word. The proper term would be captured. However 'captured' insinuates that there might be in some kind of war going on. Also 'kidnapped' makes the soldiers seem more human. Whereas 'captured' might imply they are some sort of commodity.
In sort, 'kidnapped' will make people have more sympathy for them, so your news networks will keep plying you with pictures and their ratings go up. If they are found your president will take all the glory, and if they are shot then everyone will hate Muslims even more.
2007-05-19 14:01:25 · answer #2 · answered by Janet A 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Kidnapped and kidnapping is a technical term for a crime. Terrorist are thought of as criminals instead of an organized enemy state with them as soldiers.
The reason for this this is basically, by treating the terrorists as criminals, they do not have the rights of enemy POW's. Terrorists can be called "enemy combatants" which also has a different technical meaning in the eyes of the law.
"Captured" or "capture" of military personnel would mean they were "loose" to start with. Used after an escape when they are caught, again. You would use the term "taken as prisoners of war" in exchange for "kidnapping", if a real enemy state was at war with the USA.
2007-05-19 14:08:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I prefer the term "Captured Soon To Be Headless Uniformed Combatants in a WAR ZONE"...much more accurate wouldn't you say.
I read in a book once where it said "Live by the sword, Die by the sword"...think that is on the wall at the Recruiting station?
2007-05-19 14:26:28 · answer #4 · answered by Perry L 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about, MIA for missing in action.
2007-05-19 13:58:58 · answer #5 · answered by soulguy85 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
yes, that or prisoners of war.
2007-05-19 15:31:57 · answer #6 · answered by acid tongue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's not as dramatic
2007-05-19 13:58:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋