Can the M$M please stop referring to the British sailors as hostages?

[BushOut06]

They are PRISONERS. Whether we agree with Iran taking them or not, that's what they are. They are NOT hostages. They got caught up in a territorial dispute, and were taken prisoner. Plain & simple.

Gee, you'd almost think the M$M wanted to see a war with Iran. Heck, maybe they do - would give them something new to cover 24/7. I'm sure that FOX and CNN are already hard at work contacting the talking heads, preparing their Iran War logos, and dramatic music!

[uppityperson]

1. k&r for correct terminology. Prisoners. NOT POW, NOT hostages, prisoners. nt

[paparush]

2. Mushroom clouds look just too good in hi-def! They're rooting for MORE WAR!!

[ComerPerro]

3. why even call em prisoners? Lets use the term we use: Detainees

[BushOut06]

11. Even better yet

Although detainee = prisoner, it doesn't carry the same connotation. Hell, if it's good enough for Chimpy, it's good enough for the Iranians!

[cali]

23. And here's to you!

Because what you're doing here is every bit as disingenuous as anything the MSM does- albeit on a much smaller scale.

[BushOut06]

24. I hope you're proud

I hope you and Balbus are proud of yourselves. Instead of merely pointing out that I might be mistaken, or simply asking where I had seen or heard that term, you two immediately went on the offensive and attacked me. Is that what DU has become? I swear, I honestly think that some of you simply enjoy berating other DU members over every little thing! I hope it made your day.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. check your PMs, please

[cali]

4. Mostly, I've seen them referred to as prisoners, but seriously

aren't they hostages if Iran is trying to force concessions of some sort from Britain? I don't know if they are or not, but frankly I don't see this as indicative of the MSM pimping for war. BTW, I hope not to many of us endorse Iran's holding these guys.

[jmg257]

5. You nailed it! A new war means bigger ratings!

They probably can't wait to the bombings to begin.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Speaking on behalf of the MSM

We don't write the RNC Talking Points, we just repeat them. Gotta problem with that? Go talk to Mr. Rove.

[Balbus]

7. Who's referring to them as hostages?

I just went to MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, CNN and even Fox and not one of them referred to the detained Britons as hostages. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Only the far right- Washington Times, National Review, those kind of sites

http://news.google.co.uk/news?&q=british+hostages+iran&scoring=d

[Balbus]

16. Washington Times referred to them as "captured Britons"

National Review does not mention the word hostage once. Instead refers to it as a "hijacking" of British sailors.

What else you got? :shrug:

on edit: I did find an editorial columnist on National Review who referred to them as hostages, but editorials are not news and the fact that you consider National Review as main stream media is questionable also.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. so I guess this isn't the National Review, right?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNmNmEwNWFhOGYzNTdmNjU0ZmU4NGQ0MWY1YmIxNGU=

[Balbus]

22. That's a blog on National Review - so, no, it's not the news.

on edit: And, again, since when has The National Review been considered main stream media? Should I go check the Christian Science Monitor also?

[Gabi Hayes]

27. double post...sorry

[Gabi Hayes]

28. nice backtrack editing on both of your posts, isn't it?

too bad I don't have a time machine, so that I could've responded in kind to what you didn't say!

you SAID National Review, as in they didn't mention hostages ANYWHWERE. didn't you? you didn't qualify it originally, did you? nice try. be honest.

and nothing from places like the National Review ever makes it into the M$M, does it?

[Balbus]

31. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't check blogs. I also didn't check blogs

on CNN, ABC, CBS. But if a dumbass posts a link to a blog on one of those sites like another dumbass did (not mentioning names) then I might point it out to them.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. and what stake do you have in defending the M$M, btw?

just curious

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The Washington Times repeatedly refers to them as 'hostages'

Prime Minister Tony Blair's response has been appropriately firm to the egregious incident in which 15 British sailors and marines were taken hostage Friday by Iranian naval forces after searching a civilian merchant ship in Iraqi waters on Friday.
...
The British hostages are now being interrogated, and may be charged with espionage -- an allegation as serious as it is unfounded.
...
What Mr. Ahmadinejad, now a middle-aged hostage-taker, has planned for the 15 British hostages is still unclear, but the message from the international community cannot be. Until the British hostages have been freed, Iran should face unrelenting pressure.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070326-090558-4581r.htm

Editorials are still the media. I don't regard National Review or the Washington Times as particularly 'mainstream' - but that's why I said "only the far right ...".

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost Dog]

46. "middle-aged", dammit. Now that really hurts.

Hell. :freak:

[BluePatriot]

8. Yeah, "hostages" = deliberate framing

b/c people will remember the Hostage Crisis from the late 70's and all that...

[Zywiec]

9. Trying to resurrect memories of the 1979 hostage situation

Although, clearly there is a big difference.

[yourout]

10. Are they enemy combatants?

Shoe is on the other foot.

[cali]

12. Are they Americans?

Are the Brits running Gitmo? Are they torturing people? Are Duers confused? Did anyone even notice that the OP didn't provide any evidence for his/her claim, and was challenged? Stay tuned.

[cali]

13. Can you provide any evidence for your

claim that the MSM is, in practice, referring to the brits as hostages? I haven't seen it. Another poster says the same thing. Making such a claim without evidence, is bull.

[BushOut06]

21. See post #20

n/t

[sandnsea]

15. hostages, detainees, pow's

Doesn't matter what word is used, this isn't a good thing. Or were people rooting for the Chinese when they took our troops a few years ago?

[Balbus]

17. Why is "detainee" wrong?

In Iran's own words the sailors are being "detained" pending further investigation... :shrug:

[sandnsea]

25. The word is irrelevant to me

There is no justification for this. Let them go right now.

[Balbus]

26. That we can agree on.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bdamomma]

30. they do, they are nothing but the propagandists in *'s

sick agenda. They are trying to make the Iranians the bad guys in this whole pathetic scheme, while we all know those US fleets have been there for many months now.

[Gregorian]

34. They were "GUESTS" the last time.

But that was long ago. So long that I don't recall if it was the Iran/Hostage scenario or one of Saddam's machinations. I swore it was Saddam, but...

Edit- My goodness, that was 1981. The Ayatolla called them Guests!

[leftchick]

37. how were the Iranian Diplomats kidnapped by the US referred to?

I doubt they said hostages.

[Gabi Hayes]

41. Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe references "hostages" in this story.

they don't say it themselves, merely "quote" another source

this is how is works, folks

Radio Free Europe still exists. amazing

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/D50287F2-DD86-400D-A12A-0A9A4D358BC5.html

[Gabi Hayes]

42. let's see how closely Michael Ledeen's talking points are parroted:

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25847/pub_detail.asp

[tehehehe]

43. How about this.......

.....They are the "invited guests of the Government of Iran". Is that sufficiently non-judgemental? Of course, they were invited at gunpoint, but we shouldn't let that overly cloud our perception of the motivations of the Iranians. I am sure no one here would take offense at being invited to a hostile foreign country at the point of a machine-gun, Might be quite an adventure! Just warning the Brits away may have set a bad precedent! Likewise, nothing inappropriate should be read into the offical Iranian news release that the Brits would likely be charged and possibly put on trial for espionage.

The Brit sailors and marines are merely guests, much like Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is a guest at GITMO. Nothing to get carried away about! The Brits and American State Department are getting their underpants all twisted up in a knot over a simple "visa" issue. Its merely an "illegal immigration" dispute where the Brits violated the borders of Iran and tried to sneak in without the proper paperwork. They haven't even been threatened with beheading yet!

/sarcasm

[Robson]

44. Israelis are hostages, British are hostages...everyone else are terrorists.

Why are those "military" captured by some called hostages and others called terrorists. If you are an Israeli or Brit captured by Lebanese or Iran, you are called hostages. If Iranians or Pals are captured by USA or Israel they are called terrorists. I no longer believe anything I'm told.

The MSM and the USA and others are manipulated like puppets to advance an agenda that is bigger than all of us. That's the only answer that makes sense to me. But I tend to believe that JFKs assasination and Kansas City Fed Bldg and 9-11 involve more than we know. But what makes sense to you?

[Gabi Hayes]

45. For those who might want to have a little historical perspective on WHY

the Iranians feel a little jumpy whenever the Brits get a little too close for comfort:

they were behind the coup in 1953 that ousted MossadeGh from power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050822.shtml

http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/mo/mohammed_mossadegh.htm
...............



interview w/Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men

http://hnn.us/articles/15825.html

Q: Let's start with history. In 1953 the Eisenhower administration backed a coup against the elected leader of Iran, a man named Mossadegh, who had sought to nationalize the country's oil industry. The British wanted to overthrow him to save their control over Iran's oil. But why did the United States become involved? In your book you seem to argue that Ike was conned into helping the British out.


A: The idea that Mossadegh should be overthrown originated with the British. They were apoplectic at the prospect of losing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which Mossadegh's government had nationalized with the unanimous approval of the Iranian parliament. Their efforts to carry out a coup, however, were disrupted when Mossadegh learned of their plan and responded by shutting the British embassy and expelling all British diplomats from Iran.

Among these diplomats were the secret agents who had been assigned to carry out the coup. That left the British with no way to depose Mossadegh. Prime Minister Churchill tried to persuade President Truman to carry out the coup as a favor to the British, but Truman refused. Only after Eisenhower came into office did the United States change its mind.

The British agent who came to Washington to present the coup plan to Eisenhower's team, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, wrote afterward that he knew the Americans would not respond to an appeal based on Britain's desire to regain its oil company. He decided instead to argue that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward communism. This argument was patently false, but Woodhouse sensed it would move John Foster Dulles and the rest of the Eisenhower administration into action. He was right.