Why can't we just call a bomb a bomb?
Sure, there are different types of bombs. There are big bombs, little bombs, fertilizer bombs, smart bombs, pipe bombs, incendiary bombs, doodlebug bombs, cluster bombs, nail bombs, roadside bombs and bath bombs.
IED is military nomenclature for "improvised explosive device."
Why don't they just say homemade bomb?
And why do does the media use this lingo? It's fine for an organization like the military to have its jargon, but if the terminology doesn't enhance our understanding, then why use it? Just because we can?
IED? Sounds like IUD - Intra Uterine Device - not a roadside bomb.
It also sounds like WMD, a little-roll-off-the-tongue device picked up by media hungry for war ratings in another time and place.
Let's ban IED and keep the communication real and honest.
27 March 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yeah, I don't get the improvised part. If I download "how to make a bomb' off the internet and go and buy the necessary supplies, how is that improvised? Improvised implies that I either didn't have the recipe, or didn't have the ingredients.
I can see the headlines now:
"Terrorist kills three with a vinegar and baking soda bomb"
You know Dick, you're right.
Sometimes it feels as though you're just part of big psychological experiment in which everyone else is saying there are 4 pegs on the screen when you know there are only 2.
That's how it felt when the world's number 1 nuclear power the USA was worrying about WMDs in Iraq.
1)The 'good guys' use REAL 'Bombs' - only evil terrorists use IED's - because they are the bad guys
2)They are also bad guys because they refuse to fight fair by the definition of the "Coalition' occupying armies - this is very bad, and shows a weak moral war compass.
3)The media uses IED, because it sounds cool, and shows that they appreciate the briefings they get from the good guys. They demonstrate their gratitude by turning off their camera as the Governor General is toured through the army vehicles that have been damaged by the 'bad evil guys' IED's - if they didn't, one might begin to wonder just who is good, and who is bad - which is a slippery slope.
Remember kids - Bombs=Good (esp. the new smart bombs that only kill bad guys and women and children who will at some point in the future become bad guys for sure) IED's=Bad - unfair evil war cheating terrorists heroically fighting the Western occupying armies in their own country... (Oh wait, I'm getting confused here) Bombs=Good, IED's=Bad, UsGood, ThemBad - always remember kids - the 'Other' is always bad.
I'm currently reading "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army "
Do you think that it is perhaps making me (even more) cynical?
And the number one reason - 'IEDs' sounds much better than "Bombs that they have cobbled together out of munitions that we couldn't bother securing when we invaded cause we were too busy securing the oilfields and pipelines"
Now TB, who could possible think you cynical?
But it isn't cynical to think those things, is it? I mean if the kettle is black, it's not cynical to say it's black, even if everyone else is saying it's green.
What sad is that the supposedly detached media is so embedded and so apparently unconcerned about embracing the roles of cheerleaders and besotted teenagers with a big crush on our boys (Christine Blatchford).
And that's not an attack on "our boys". It's an attack on "our media"
And don't get me started on the fact that Canada's General Rick Hillier has more power than the Ministers of Defence or Foreign Affairs .
Well - in part that may be because his IQ is 20 times higher than the Foreign Affairs minister's IQ (see 'Damn with faint praise')
Post a Comment