The word 'Terrorism' being replaced with 'man-caused disaster'

[SUBMAN1]

This administration is pretty shallow and hollow I'd say. This reminds me of calling illegal aliens undocumented workers.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/03/19/obama-speak-homeland-security-secretary-replaces-terrorism-term-man-caus

-S

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2972/att00050.jpg

[nikimcbee]

See subman, you just don't get it.:doh: You need to destroy the village, before you can save it.:wah:

[GoldenRivet]

"Well F**k me, whats next?" :nope: thats all i can say


:har:

[Digital_Trucker]

I suppose wars will now be known as weapons-related human malfunctions.:damn:

[kenijaru]

Chernobyl was a "man-caused disaster", the Exxon Valdez was a "man-caused disaster"... Putting a plane through a building or detonating bombs on a train isn't a "man-caused disaster".
This euphemism puts terrorism at the same level of "regrettable accidents"

[Frame57]

More of the PC mindset at work. Personally I do not like the word terrorist either because to me they are not something to fear but rather destroy and eliminate off the face of the earth

[Platapus]

Far be it for me to question the high standards of such news sources as Newsbusters :har:

But before we get our pampers all twisted up, let's at least find a credible source of what Secretary Napolitano actually said to congress.

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1235577134817.shtm

Here is the statement that is being discussed.

At its core, I believe DHS has a straightforward mission: to protect the American people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and manmade – to do all that we can to prevent threats from materializing, respond to them if they do, and recover with resiliency. ...

That's what she said. DHS is focusing on threats both foreign and domestic to include natural and manmade threats. Nothing said to congress about changing any terminology. Nothing said about being PC about the term terrorism. Nothing said about DHS not being concerned with terrorism or terrorist attacks on the US.

Just an acknowledgment that DHS has many responsibilities. Securing the nation from terrorist attacks is only one of the many responsibilities the DHS has.

Here is a list of her priorities for DHS

- Improving the governance, functionality, and accountability of the Department of Homeland Security;
- enhancing security for all modes of transportation;
- strengthening our Nation: response, resilience, and recovery;
- shielding the Nation’s critical infrastructure from attacks;
- securing the homeland and preserving privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties;
- connecting the dots: intelligence, information sharing, and interoperability;
- implementing common-sense border and port security; and
- inspiring minds and developing technology – the future of homeland security.

Sounds like a pretty good list to me. I just hope that under her leadership DHS can change from almost a failure to a success, but only time will tell that. :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Platapus, you should really read the article.

That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

-S

[Platapus]

No I don't care what some news source reports, I go to the original source when I want to learn about something.

[SUBMAN1]

No I don't care what some news source reports, I go to the original source when I want to learn about something. I did provide the original source. See the post directly above yours.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I did provide the original source. See the post directly above yours.

-S

At least quote the whole sentence, SUBMAN... That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SUBMAN1]

No. I refuse to include the deflection statement, and from reading your comments, it is an excellent deflection since it seems to be working.

I do not fall for classic propaganda like that.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The correct method in such a situation is to:
1) quote the whole thing.
2) explain why the part you originally wanted to skip is a Deflection statement.

[SUBMAN1]

No need. Anyone else here can see the difference.

-S

[SteamWake]

Suicide bomber = Homicide Bomber = disastor causer?

Words, just words.

[Christopher Snow]

Republican blogger Jeff Schreiber opines this is just an example of trying to "put lipstick on a pig," and I think he's right.

Now if these underlings were actually listening to their fearless leader, they would already know this sort of thing won't work--'cause the annointed one said it won't work--back during the campaign.

--------

Or maybe that was just campaign rhetoric after all. :D

If so, then the annointed one can fix everything simply by relabeling this "economic downturn" an "economic upturn" instead...and everyone will instantly be in gravy again.

This tactic should work straight across the board: "Toxic assets" will become "Triple AAA investments," bankruptcies and takeovers can be called "desirable consolidations," and job losses can be called "vacations of opportunity," etc.

I'm sure I'll sleep a lot better tonight--howbout you?


CS

[Tribesman]

Suicide bomber = Homicide Bomber

That one always makes me laugh .
Certain journalists and bloggers who don't like the term suicide bomber so they make a new term that is completely meaningless as it applies to all bombers except those who only intend to injure or cause damage to property .