Falluja's Slaughterhouses

[KevanGuy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slaughterhouse

2. A scene of massacre or carnage.

Seems fitting to me.

[Bingo]

Guys, believe me, I can understand you're hesitation with news stories that support the US war in Iraq.

But from what I've read we have to question the BBC's negative spin on the war every bit as much as a person should question CNN's positive spin. Like most things in life, the truth is in the middle, not at the BBC's door step.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@Nov 11 2004, 10:09 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slaughterhouse

2. A scene of massacre or carnage.

Seems fitting to me.

Fine, but the first definition is;

1. A place where animals are butchered.

So I don't see how I'm that far off. I still contend that 'murder-house' would be a lot more specific and accurate.

If you're looking for emotional appeal, why not call it House of Gore? Or Bloodfest 2004? It was bloody, it was 2004, makes sense as a name, no?

What it is is a house where dozens of people were killed. Why not just call it that? Where is the need for the graphic word being used. Oh yeah, I forgot, to raise public morale.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 11 2004, 05:17 AM
But a house that was basically the site for the slaughter of x number of people is certainly a slaughterhouse.

Thats the whole problem I have with this. How is it basically a 'site for the slaughter of x number of people'? What it was was a building, with four walls and a roof (most likely) where hostages were murdered. Glorifying their deaths somehow by calling it a Slaughterhouse is done purely for emotional appeal, and no other reason. The word was chosen very specifically to resonate within the populace of the States, and it has.

An excellent study in government vernacular and its success.

[Bingo]

I still contend that the only people that have an issue with the word slaughterhouse are those that oppose the war.

The media, regardless of their ideology, are in the business of selling news, so of course they are going to pick a catchy term to describe it.

But ... how would you complete a news story title that has the following words....

Troops find hostage xxxxx in Falluja

Troops find dwelling where a number of people were killed in Falluja? That doesn't read very well, so you need a noun in there.

Slaughterhouse
Execution Site

I don't know if there is a way to make you guys happy in this case.

[Agamemnon]

I still contend that the only people that have an issue with the word slaughterhouse are those that oppose the war.

Interesting surmise, you're probably right about that.

The media, regardless of their ideology, are in the business of selling news, so of course they are going to pick a catchy term to describe it.

Right or wrong, thats definitely true.

But ... how would you complete a news story title that has the following words....

Troops find hostage xxxxx in Falluja

Troops find dwelling where a number of people were killed in Falluja? That doesn't read very well, so you need a noun in there.

Slaughterhouse
Execution Site

Seems pretty obvious. If you're looking to inflame and moblize the population against the Fallujah terrorists, you'd use the word slaughterhouse. If you were looking for as non-subjective way to describe it as possible, you'd use Execution site. Besides, people were murdered here, is there a reason that it has to 'read very well'? Do you need graphic, illustrative description to make you feel sorry for the hostages? I guess it depends what your motives and priorities are.

I don't know if there is a way to make you guys happy in this case.

Hmm, there are a couple I guess Why not start calling all of Fallujah a 'Slaughterhouse'. Its a bloody place, many people are being killed on both sides, doesn't that qualify as a 'slaughterhouse'? Or does it have to be an actual 'house'?

I'd be really happy if they'd just say they found a house where people were killed and be done with it. I recall military officials on the ground in Iraq using the term Slaughterhouse several times, making me think that its a planned word that their promoting (and being very successful with).

If Slaughterhouse is the single, best word you think could be used to describe the situation, then I guess we differ on this one. I think its being used to sensationalize a story that needs no exacerbation; it is ugly and wrong without being subjectively exploited by the occupation.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 11 2004, 07:57 AM

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".

Several of the people beheaded worked for relief agencies I believe. At least 2 that I know of were there of their own accord and not affilliated with anyone at all. Nice of you to lump them in with the evil contracters.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 11:05 AM

Seems pretty obvious. If you're looking to inflame and moblize the population against the Fallujah terrorists, you'd use the word slaughterhouse. If you were looking for as non-subjective way to describe it as possible, you'd use Execution site. Besides, people were murdered here, is there a reason that it has to 'read very well'? Do you need graphic, illustrative description to make you feel sorry for the hostages? I guess it depends what your motives and priorities are.

Take it from a guy that has to come up with 100 game story titles a year for Calgarypuck ...

Troops find dwelling where a number of people were killed in Falluja

... doesn't fit too well on the top of a web story. You need to make it less wordy, hence the need to toss a term at the dwelling in question and not describe it in 5 or more words.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 11 2004, 05:48 PM
Take it from a guy that has to come up with 100 game story titles a year for Calgarypuck ...

Troops find dwelling where a number of people were killed in Falluja

... doesn't fit too well on the top of a web story. You need to make it less wordy, hence the need to toss a term at the dwelling in question and not describe it in 5 or more words.

I don't think the argument here is 'why has the media used this word' so much as 'should the media have used this word'. I get that we live in a capitalist media system where crap sells, the dirtier the better.

Do you think its responsible to use a term like Slaughterhouse simply because it fits well on a page?

My point is that the word is misleading, and designed to emotionally charge the American (and world) population against the insurgents in Fallujah. I'm not saying that the insurgents are right or wrong, but I am saying that this word is part of a propaganda piece. I'm not a fan of such overt, subjective propaganda being stuffed down my throat by most of the major news outlets. It just reeks to me of buying instantly into the vocabulary that the media-relations officers are feeding to the reporters.

Its a sound-bit, and sound-bits are bad for understanding the truth of conflicts like this. Soon instead of Terrorists the US will be hunting down Slaughterers. Thats an even better word for the bad guys... though it doesn't roll of the tongue as easily.

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Nov 11 2004, 09:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Nov 11 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KevanGuy@Nov 11 2004, 10:09 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slaughterhouse

2. A scene of massacre or carnage.

Seems fitting to me.

Fine, but the first definition is;

1. A place where animals are butchered.

So I don't see how I'm that far off. I still contend that 'murder-house' would be a lot more specific and accurate.

If you're looking for emotional appeal, why not call it House of Gore? Or Bloodfest 2004? It was bloody, it was 2004, makes sense as a name, no?

What it is is a house where dozens of people were killed. Why not just call it that? Where is the need for the graphic word being used. Oh yeah, I forgot, to raise public morale. [/b][/quote]
Because it fits the definition of a slaughterhouse? Maybe I should just edit my post and take out the actual definiton of a slaughterhouse to help you make your point. Obviously the facts are getting in your way.

[Cain]

This whole argument is awfully reminiscent of canuck fans feeling that lacroix manipulated the media by saying that moore had a 'broken neck' when moore had a broken neck.

Only canuck fans really felt that lacroix was trying to manipulate anything, and I think only people looking really hard to find something wrong with the US are seeing something wrong with the headline.

Bottom line is that if you are looking for something, chances are that you'll find it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@Nov 11 2004, 07:24 PM
Because it fits the definition of a slaughterhouse? Maybe I should just edit my post and take out the actual definiton of a slaughterhouse to help you make your point. Obviously the facts are getting in your way.

Uh huh. My point was that the term 'slaugherhouse' was not chosen for its dictionary definition. It was chosen for its emotional appeal.

If you think it is the single, best term or phrase to accurately and objectively describe the house where hostages were killed, fine. I think its been purposefully selected to generate public sympathy.

Again, as to the term, I'm not sure how a facility for processing livestock is analagous to a building used to murder people. What is the room where US prisoners are executed called (much better analogy imo)? An Execution Chamber? So why not call it an Execution house?

[badnarik]

i think they used the term slaughterhouse simply because of the way they were killing the people. they were chopping off their heads like cattle in a queue.

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std1.htm

A bullock’s head is extended and the head lifted upwards by a chin lift in an upright pen. The slaughterer cuts his throat by slicing across it, backwards and forwards, 13 times. The bullock jerks away from the knife as far as he can and his facial reaction shows pain and great aversion. The cow does not collapse immediately (the filming ends before he does).

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 07:34 PM

Uh huh. My point was that the term 'slaugherhouse' was not chosen for its dictionary definition. It was chosen for its emotional appeal.

If you think it is the single, best term or phrase to accurately and objectively describe the house where hostages were killed, fine. I think its been purposefully selected to generate public sympathy.

Again, as to the term, I'm not sure how a facility for processing livestock is analagous to a building used to murder people. What is the room where US prisoners are executed called (much better analogy imo)? An Execution Chamber? So why not call it an Execution house?

Why does the US military/government need to charge up emotions against the insurgents responsible for the beheadings? I thought people were pretty upset about that across the board no matter what their stance on the war is/was.

I think at worst, the term was born of emotion....as opposed to your stance of designed to incite emotion. I can't see any person's views of these events being changed by the word slaughterhouse.

I think you guys are reaching.

[Agamemnon]

Why does the US military/government need to charge up emotions against the insurgents responsible for the beheadings? I thought people were pretty upset about that across the board no matter what their stance on the war is/was.

I thought it was obvious. The war in Iraq is not a popular one, around the world or in the United States. Right now the US is seriously shelling and bombing the snot out of a decent sized city. Villifying the enemy in a public and propagandist way assures the support of the citizenry back home. While the term slaughterhouse is, I'm sure, meant only to villify specifically those who carried out the heinous atrocities, it has the effect of painting every resistor in Iraq with that same brush, and I'm sure the effect is not unintentional.

I think at worst, the term was born of emotion....as opposed to your stance of designed to incite emotion. I can't see any person's views of these events being changed by the word slaughterhouse.

I think at worst the term was born of specific US military vernacular (presented by media officers or interviewees on the ground) repeated over and over to the media, which in turn repeats it to us. Its one thing to feel deep emotions over the loss of these innocents, another to exploit their deaths with terms designed to increase general support for the war. If the point was to simply report the news, the term slaughterhouse would not have been introduced.

I think you guys are reaching.

Ditto.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Good arguments Ag.

Maybe you're right. However, from my personal point of view and how the term is interpreted by me.....it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't think bombing the snot out of Fallujah is cool. In fact, if the thing were done right in the first place we wouldn't be doing that now. Wouldn't have to.

However, when I heard that they had found these places it didn't make me feel any better about how things are progressing there other than the fact that maybe they got some of the bas**rds who were involved in the kidnappings and throat slashings and/or head removal (slaughter).

[Bingo]

I just don't see it.

People were kept in cages and brutally murdered in this house. There isn't a downside to closing that operation. Nor is there a word, in my mind, that does justice to what went on there.

You don't need to use words to use flowery language to portray people that cut the heads off non-military personnel as bad people.

They take care of that by themselves.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 11 2004, 09:08 PM
Good arguments Ag.

Maybe you're right. However, from my personal point of view and how the term is interpreted by me.....it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't think bombing the snot out of Fallujah is cool. In fact, if the thing were done right in the first place we wouldn't be doing that now. Wouldn't have to.

However, when I heard that they had found these places it didn't make me feel any better about how things are progressing there other than the fact that maybe they got some of the bas**rds who were involved in the kidnappings and throat slashings and/or head removal (slaughter).

I hear ya. The hostages were definitely 'slaughtered', and it is a 'house', so you definitely have a point too

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 11 2004, 09:19 PM
I just don't see it.

People were kept in cages and brutally murdered in this house. There isn't a downside to closing that operation. Nor is there a word, in my mind, that does justice to what went on there.

You don't need to use words to use flowery language to portray people that cut the heads off non-military personnel as bad people.

They take care of that by themselves.

I guess if you don't see it, you don't see it. Watching CNN currently talk about the US army 'rooting out slaughterhouses' in Fallujah as the main headline. It makes it sound like that was the reason they embarked on this operation, which is avoiding/ignoring 90% of the situation.

I get that if you support the war, and 'hate' the 'terrorists', then the word slaughterhouse probably fits. I don't agree w/ either, so I have a hard time. To each their own.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 03:25 PM
I get that if you support the war, and 'hate' the 'terrorists', then the word slaughterhouse probably fits. I don't agree w/ either, so I have a hard time. To each their own.

You don't hate terrorists?

Isn't that like saying you don't hate cancer? Or child abuse?