Of Bombs and Babies

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Mycroft
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3157970,00.html

Bomb hidden under toddler

The wife of a wanted Palestinian fugitive tried to hide a hand grenade under her baby; Five fugitives were arrested in a house where 10 Kg of explosives were found
Efrat Weiss

Five wanted terror suspects have been arrested in overnight searches conducted by the IDF in a village north of Nablus in the early hours of Saturday.

In a house where the suspects were hiding 10 Kg (about 22 pounds) of explosives were found. An extensive search of the house revealed that the wife of one of the suspects had hidden a hand-grenade under the toddler she was holding in her arms.
Click to expand...

Yikes! They couldn't find a better hiding place for one little grenade?!
 
Cleopatra said:
I wonder how none of the "respected and unbiased" journalists didn't refer to the " brutal body search of a baby by the IDF"...
Click to expand...

Good point. Ynet news was obviously remiss in failing to mention the deep humiliation felt by the baby which now can only be soothed by the violent spilling of innocent blood later on, with the sympathies of print journalism and politicians worldwide.
 
Actually, somebody'll prolly interview the kid in 20 years, who'll claim he wishes the grenade had gone off rather than that the Americans had touched him.

While standing in front of a Bagdhad Walmart.
 
Cleopatra said:
I wonder how none of the "respected and unbiased" journalists didn't refer to the " brutal body search of a baby by the IDF"
Click to expand...
Mycroft said:
Good point. Ynet news was obviously remiss in failing to mention the deep humiliation felt by the baby which now can only be soothed by the violent spilling of innocent blood later on, with the sympathies of print journalism and politicians worldwide.
Click to expand...
"Good point"? You're riffing on bias in the media using a non-biased example as the launching point.
 
So, instead of rudely telling people where to go and what to do...

How desperate must one be to put a child at risk? And what would happen to the child now, since clearly the mother and father would be in custody.
 
Whats the big deal. My baby nephew constantly has granades in his diapers. Talk about WMD's !!! PEEEEE UUUUUUU!
 
Mycroft said:
Now, any rational person knows that "disarming" means taking their weapons away(content deleted by Darat)" A non-biased reporting of this story would have said, "...although described as "disarming" by the Palestinian Authority, this planned reorganization does not require any member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to relinquish their arms..."
Click to expand...

However if you look at the original article you will see that it is refuring to the organisation being dissarmed rather than the people. So what you describe as unbiased reporting would in fact be strawman based editoraliseing.

Neutral reporting would go something like this:

The Palestinian Authority have stated that they plan to begin disarming the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in the coming weeks by setting up training camps and incorporating its members into the Palestinian security forces. Critiques <!---wessal words need to be able to source this to person or group ---> have argued that no weapons will be removed and as such this does not count as dissarming.

See no attempt to force a defintion of dissarming apon the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
geni said:
Neutral reporting would go something like this:

The Palestinian Authority have stated that they plan to begin disarming the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in the coming weeks by setting up training camps and incorporating its members into the Palestinian security forces. Critiques <!---wessal words need to be able to source this to person or group ---> have argued that no weapons will be removed and as such this does not count as dissarming.

See no attempt to force a defintion of dissarming apon the situation.
Click to expand...

Except the word "disarm" already has a definition, To divest of weapons.

If the action doesn't fit the descritpion, one may point that out without "forcing a definition" or even sourcing a critic.
 
Mycroft said:
Except the word "disarm" already has a definition, To divest of weapons.
Click to expand...

And indeed the group will be divested of weapons what is your problem

If the action doesn't fit the descritpion, one may point that out without "forcing a definition" or even sourcing a critic.
Click to expand...

Not fitting a description is an opinion.
 
geni said:
And indeed the group will be divested of weapons what is your problem
Click to expand...

How so? Nowhere in the article does it talk about turning in guns, rockets, grenades or ammunition.

geni said:
Not fitting a description is an opinion.
Click to expand...

In some cases, maybe, but if someone has been divested of their weapon or not is an objective fact that is either true or false, it is not a matter of opinion.
 
Mycroft said:
How so? Nowhere in the article does it talk about turning in guns, rockets, grenades or ammunition.
Click to expand...

That isn't required to dissarm a group. Makeing the group cease to exist is equaly effective.


In some cases, maybe, but if someone has been divested of their weapon or not is an objective fact that is either true or false, it is not a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

However it is an opinion that takeing away weapons from individuals is required to dissarm a group.
 
geni said:
That isn't required to dissarm a group. Makeing the group cease to exist is equaly effective.
Click to expand...

Except the group will continue to exist, only reorganized and under a different banner.

If your overall point is that divestment of weapons is not required for disarming despite despite very clear dictionary definitions, then I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this. It's rather Clintonesque, like arguing the definition of "is."

geni said:
However it is an opinion that takeing away weapons from individuals is required to dissarm a group.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would say that taking the weapons away from the entire group is required.
 
[pmod=Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]This thread is approaching the threshold of Flame War material. Please try to remain civil.[/pmod]
 
Mycroft said:
Except the group will continue to exist, only reorganized and under a different banner.

If your overall point is that divestment of weapons is not required for disarming despite despite very clear dictionary definitions, then I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this. It's rather Clintonesque, like arguing the definition of "is."
Click to expand...

The technique does work sometimes though (technical this is exactly the technique used to create one of the first profession post roman armies in europe.

I agree. I would say that taking the weapons away from the entire group is required.
Click to expand...

That however is an opinion and must be reported as such (belive me this is the kind of thing I deal with all the time on wikipedia. Thank goodness for the US goverment's list of terrorist organisations).
 
geni said:
The technique does work sometimes though (technical this is exactly the technique used to create one of the first profession post roman armies in europe.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a literal definition of "disarm". If by "work" you mean a larger issue if this is the best policy for the PA to follow, well, that's a different issue. It may be that politically the only way Abbas can bring this group under control is to incorporate them into his security apparatus, but it is still not "disarming" them for the simple reason that it doesn't involve divesting them of arms.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm talking about a literal definition of "disarm".
Click to expand...

Why should a newspaper, or any other non-technical writer, limit itself to such a narrow definition when the word has other widely used and easily understood meanings that are well established in the dictionaries?
 
I closed this thread to allow me time to read all the posts. I've soft-deleted all the post that made personal attacks or insults or comments about those personal attacks and insults. I have not issued warnings to the Members involved however if they are repeated, in any form now the thread has been re-opened then I will again delete them and I will issue warnings. Remember this is section about "Politics, Current Events and Social Issues, not your personal problems or views of other Members. Attacking the arguments and opinions put forward is fine, attacking the Member is not.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Leif Roar said:
Why should a newspaper, or any other non-technical writer, limit itself to such a narrow definition when the word has other widely used and easily understood meanings that are well established in the dictionaries?
Click to expand...

What other meanings do you think would be appropriate in this context?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom