« SHOULD FOOD BE FREE? | Main | ON BIRD FLU...... »

January 07, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83421e57253ef00d83469e28953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MIND YOUR LANGUAGE!:

Comments

Alan McDonald

David,

When you say, "his preferred MUSLIM name of Abdullah Al-Muhajir," by whom is this name preferred?

David Vance

Preferred by Abdullah!

BB

Isn't his legal name Jose Padilla?

David Vance

No. Now keep up.

ed

Spot on, David.

Fiona

Perhaps because that's the name that the legal proceedings are in?? I imagine it's to avoid confusion between the media reports and the case reporting.

David Vance

...and perhaps the MSM are doing their best to not mention the "M" word...you know..M is for Muslim, M is for...can you guess?

Cunningham

Madradin Ruad ?

David Vance

Cunningham,

It's a good guess, but you're wrong!

ed

Debbie Schussel?

ed

Debbie Schlussel?


Whoops, didn't mean to repeat. Or to be facetious. Too much spare internet time this Sunday afternoon I guess.

Alan McDonald

David,

I guess you'll have to skip the MSM and start paying more attention to Democracy Now!
Wednesday, June 12th, 2002:
The Latest U.S. "Terrorist" Suspect, Abdullah Al Muhajir, Is Designated An "Enemy Combatant" and Held Without Charges in a Legal Twilight Zone

Oh, and you'll have to stop listening to George W. Bush, too, because he calls him Jose Padilla.

David Vance

Skipping the MSM is always a good idea! Do you think Bush wrote the document which refers to Jose Padilla AND what relevance has this to the fact that Al Muhajir refers to himself in his Muslim incarnation?

Alan McDonald

No, but Bush signed it. Your post is about what the MSM calls him; they would listen to Bush before Al Muhajir.

David Vance

So, if my post is about why the MSM refer to Al Muhajir as Padilla, can you please explain it? Referring to legal documents signed by the President does not address this. Try again...

ed

Actually that's interesting. I think it's a good example of where a)Bush plays down the war against Islam aspect, as he is wont to do, and b)he, but most likely his writer, misses a powerful trick and plays into the hands of his opponents in the media.

It would still be fair to say that Bush was being diplomatic, as his post demands that he is, but that the media has no place sticking to a politician's diplomatic line, and certainly shouldn't use a politician's terms as normative ones.

Thus DV is spot on, still.

The comments to this entry are closed.