Falluja's Slaughterhouses

[HelloHockeyFans]

"We have found hostage slaughterhouses in Falluja that were used by these people (kidnappers) and the black clothing that they used to wear to identify themselves, hundreds of CDs and whole records with names of hostages," The AP quoted the general as saying.

Hostage Slaughterhouses Found

[octothorp]

Am I the only one who hates the heavily calculated terminology that the US is using here? Slaughterhouse? The thing that really bothers me is that the word 'slaughterhouse' gives the connotation that hundreds of captives have been killed in these places. Is that the case? I don't think hundreds of hostages have been executed in all Iraq.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally posted by octothorp@Nov 10 2004, 05:32 PM
Am I the only one who hates the heavily calculated terminology that the US is using here? Slaughterhouse? The thing that really bothers me is that the word 'slaughterhouse' gives the connotation that hundreds of captives have been killed in these places. Is that the case? I don't think hundreds of hostages have been executed in all Iraq.

It's very misleading when they say "hundreds of CDS and whole records with names of hostages". But then again, maybe they have killed that many hostages?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

There's around 40 foreign hostages that are killed so far, not counting locals and middle easterners.

I'm not sure how many before you'd consider it a slaughterhouse, but even if it's less than 10, that's enough for me to justify the word use.

[RougeUnderoos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3748966.stm

[Displaced Flames fan]

Since the hostages in question were basically killed just like cows are killed in slaughterhouses it seems appropriate. Is there a certain # of cows that have to be killed in a facility before it can be referred to as a slaughterhouse? I don't think so.

What is the point of the complaint though? Is there really any legitimate way to distort the nature of these killings in either direction? They are what they are. Nobody's verbage or disagreement with that verbage is going to change any rational person's opinion on just exactly what is taking place.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by octothorp@Nov 10 2004, 05:32 PM
Am I the only one who hates the heavily calculated terminology that the US is using here? Slaughterhouse? The thing that really bothers me is that the word 'slaughterhouse' gives the connotation that hundreds of captives have been killed in these places. Is that the case? I don't think hundreds of hostages have been executed in all Iraq.

I agree. It's text book propaganda. They choose these words to envoke emotions in people back home that will cover up the emotions they have when hearing about casualties.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 10 2004, 10:19 PM
Since the hostages in question were basically killed just like cows are killed in slaughterhouses it seems appropriate. Is there a certain # of cows that have to be killed in a facility before it can be referred to as a slaughterhouse? I don't think so.

What is the point of the complaint though? Is there really any legitimate way to distort the nature of these killings in either direction? They are what they are. Nobody's verbage or disagreement with that verbage is going to change any rational person's opinion on just exactly what is taking place.

That's fair enough I suppose.

How would you feel though if CNN described Fallujah as a "Shooting Gallery For American Troops" or if not that then "indiscriminate free-fire zone".

Pretty inflammatory, eh? But that's what it seems to be.

We are all getting conned on this one IMO. There is a real fight going on there and there are 50 thousand civilians in that city.

On a related note, the lead story on CNN at noon was the Peterson trial in California. There is an urban war involving 10 thousand US troops going on and they lead with that? Boooo.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 11 2004, 04:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 11 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-octothorp@Nov 10 2004, 05:32 PM
Am I the only one who hates the heavily calculated terminology that the US is using here? Slaughterhouse? The thing that really bothers me is that the word 'slaughterhouse' gives the connotation that hundreds of captives have been killed in these places. Is that the case? I don't think hundreds of hostages have been executed in all Iraq.

I agree. It's text book propaganda. They choose these words to envoke emotions in people back home that will cover up the emotions they have when hearing about casualties. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, right.

Are they exaggerating? No.

If those places are where the beheadings have been filmed and carried out they are slaughterhouses. How is it propoganda?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 11 2004, 04:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 11 2004, 04:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I agree. It's text book propaganda. They choose these words to envoke emotions in people back home that will cover up the emotions they have when hearing about casualties.

Yeah, right.

Are they exaggerating? No.

If those places are where the beheadings have been filmed and carried out they are slaughterhouses. How is it propoganda? [/b][/quote]
They are slaughter houses just as much as an execution room in a prison is a murder room, or Abu Grahib prison is a torture house for military sexual offenders. It is true depending on your point of view.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Nov 11 2004, 04:47 AM

That's fair enough I suppose.

How would you feel though if CNN described Fallujah as a "Shooting Gallery For American Troops" or if not that then "indiscriminate free-fire zone".

Pretty inflammatory, eh? But that's what it seems to be.

We are all getting conned on this one IMO. There is a real fight going on there and there are 50 thousand civilians in that city.

On a related note, the lead story on CNN at noon was the Peterson trial in California. There is an urban war involving 10 thousand US troops going on and they lead with that? Boooo.

I don't find the descriptions you used inflammatory at all.

But yeah, pretty disgusting that now the election is over we are back to real life Jerry Springer episodes dominating the news headlines.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 11 2004, 04:55 AM

They are slaughter houses just as much as an execution room in a prison is a murder room, or Abu Grahib prison is a torture house for military sexual offenders. It is true depending on your point of view.

Nonsense. The motivation for the killings can't be justified by any rational person. Even those who oppose the death penalty understand the rationale behind what is taking place, especially when viewed in light of the law. Abu Gharaib could be described that way if it were used exclusively for torture and all staff there were sex offenders.

Why try to minimize the murder of completely innocent civillians?

[Bingo]

I understand many of you don't like the Iraqi conflict, don't like US policies and don't support Bush ... all of that is fine.

But a house that was basically the site for the slaughter of x number of people is certainly a slaughterhouse. I think it hits a nerve with some of you because it comes across as positive news for the US in that they went in and stopped it. Bottom line ... it is good news. It's still possible to not support the war in Iraq, but if hostage taking and beheadings are even slowed in any way it's a good story for the US, for innocents in Iraq and for humanity. Isn't it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 10 2004, 11:17 PM
I understand many of you don't like the Iraqi conflict, don't like US policies and don't support Bush ... all of that is fine.

But a house that was basically the site for the slaughter of x number of people is certainly a slaughterhouse. I think it hits a nerve with some of you because it comes across as positive news for the US in that they went in and stopped it. Bottom line ... it is good news. It's still possible to not support the war in Iraq, but if hostage taking and beheadings are even slowed in any way it's a good story for the US, for innocents in Iraq and for humanity. Isn't it?

That's true, if you buy the story.

I don't. Well, I might, but what we are being fed certainly isn't all of it. From what I've been reading on plain old bbc.co.uk , things are really ugly in Fallujah. The "justification story" about the "slaughterhouse" doesn't change much.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So the story is just a justification for what's happening in Fallujah right now eh? Maybe in your mind. To me, it's just an aside. Everyone knew all along that Al-Zarqawi was operating in Fallujah. Not sure your spin really works.

One thing we can agree on, the innocent citizens of Fallujah are suffering right now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 10 2004, 11:41 PM
So the story is just a justification for what's happening in Fallujah right now eh? Maybe in your mind. To me, it's just an aside. Everyone knew all along that Al-Zarqawi was operating in Fallujah. Not sure your spin really works.

One thing we can agree on, the innocent citizens of Fallujah are suffering right now.

Well it's sort of a justification.

"Look what we found, that's why we're here"! is pretty transparent I think.

I don't know that I'm "spinning" anything. Everyone knew (or at least believed) that Zarqawi was there. Everyone also knows that he's long gone, along with his bestest buddies.

From what I've read, the American troops are now fighting the locals. With a destroyed city and thousands of dead Fallujans, what happens when the rest of the people return?

This is bad. There is no spin needed.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Nov 11 2004, 06:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Nov 11 2004, 06:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Nov 10 2004, 11:41 PM
So the story is just a justification for what's happening in Fallujah right now eh? Maybe in your mind. To me, it's just an aside. Everyone knew all along that Al-Zarqawi was operating in Fallujah. Not sure your spin really works.

One thing we can agree on, the innocent citizens of Fallujah are suffering right now.

Well it's sort of a justification.

"Look what we found, that's why we're here"! is pretty transparent I think.

I don't know that I'm "spinning" anything. Everyone knew (or at least believed) that Zarqawi was there. Everyone also knows that he's long gone, along with his bestest buddies.

From what I've read, the American troops are now fighting the locals. With a destroyed city and thousands of dead Fallujans, what happens when the rest of the people return?

This is bad. There is no spin needed. [/b][/quote]
Ah, I get it. So your sources tell you that there are no insurgents left in Fallujah and now the Americans are just killing locals for fun and justifying it by using the word slaughterhouse instead of humane innocent elimination building. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 11 2004, 12:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 11 2004, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well it's sort of a justification.

"Look what we found, that's why we're here"! is pretty transparent I think.

I don't know that I'm "spinning" anything. Everyone knew (or at least believed) that Zarqawi was there. Everyone also knows that he's long gone, along with his bestest buddies.

From what I've read, the American troops are now fighting the locals. With a destroyed city and thousands of dead Fallujans, what happens when the rest of the people return?

This is bad. There is no spin needed.

Ah, I get it. So your sources tell you that there are no insurgents left in Fallujah and now the Americans are just killing locals for fun and justifying it by using the word slaughterhouse instead of humane innocent elimination building. Thanks for clearing that up for me. [/b][/quote]
Gee whiz and you say I'm spinning? You know that's not what I was saying.

Of course there are "insurgents". Of course the Americans (and Iraqi forces) are not just killing the locals for fun. I disagree with the whole thing but I know that American soldiers are not a bunch of sadistic crazies. Still, civilians (I believe) are getting killed en masse.

The term "slaughterhouse" brings up certain images. If it's true then use it. What bothers me is that the "good side" and it's supporters couch so much in innocuous language like "collateral damage" and other nice euphemisms. There are no doubt thousands of dead people in that city right now. The whole place is a slaughterhouse. The city is being destroyed, the people are dying. Propping up some sadly trivial place where some people may have died is, I don't know, disingenuous? It seems to be a "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing.

It's like saying "yeah, thousands of people are dying, but we did find a place where they killed a few, so the whole thing is justified".

I'd prefer they were a little more honest about it all. Honesty ain't pretty though.

[Agamemnon]

Isn't 'slaughtering' something to do more with processing cattle and livestock when it comes to the word 'slaughterhouse'? I see no real reason to use slaughterhouse over 'murder-house' or 'hostage-house'. Slaughterhouse just evokes more emotion, so its the chosen vernacular. Makes sense for the media to go along with the more sensational wording, it sells more commercial space.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 11 2004, 04:58 AM

Nonsense. The motivation for the killings can't be justified by any rational person. Even those who oppose the death penalty understand the rationale behind what is taking place, especially when viewed in light of the law.

Just because something is law, doesn't make it right. The law to Islamic fundamentalists is that they can take whatever action necessary to help their cause. That certainly doesn't make it right.

Abu Gharaib could be described that way if it were used exclusively for torture and all staff there were sex offenders.

Why does it have to be used exclusively for that? I doubt if the "slaughter houses" were used exclusively for slaughter.

Why try to minimize the murder of completely innocent civillians?

Sorry, but if someone is contracted on behalf of an occupying force, they are no longer civilians. You might agree with the occupation, but just like the war supporters say when bad things happen to Iraqi civilians - it's war. If someone chooses to be there as part of the occupation, they lose their status as a civilian.

I don't agree with summary executions any more than I do the war in general. If we are going to term the places where people who are part of an occupying force are executed as "slaughter houses", then lets call the occupying force a "slaughtering force".