3 ms·

Except, the news calling, for example, Bush Jr a "War criminal" is exactly objective. His Casus Belli was false, and he knew that. We invaded sovereign countri

Except, the news calling, for example, Bush Jr a "War criminal" is exactly objective. His Casus Belli was false, and he knew that. We invaded sovereign countries illegally. Would you read news that openly called him a war criminal? Reality gets extreme all the time. If you police the language more than the reality, you are just making the problem worse. You are forcing people to pretend reality isn't so bad just so you do not have to fix reality. Guess what? Reality is bad right now. We are bombing boats off the coast of south America and posturing like we are going to war with them and bailing out Argentina because of political rhetoric and affiliations and corruption, and we wasted over $150 billion harassing brown people and sending American citizens to foreign prisons and maybe catching a few people who overstayed their visas or walked over our border. And yet you tone police the people trying to inform you of that.

bpt3 1y ago
Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. You can argue that he should be, and I probably would agree with you, but an organization supposedly dedicated to unearthing biases in the media should not inject their opinions into their own reporting.
- slg 1y ago
  That is a silly standard. Hitler was never convicted of war crimes, would you object to someone calling him a war criminal?
  - bpt3 1y ago
    I would say that an organization that needs to be highly objective should not call him one. They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.
    - slg 1y ago
      > They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him. How do you know this?
      - bpt3 1y ago
        Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion.
        slg 1y ago
        >Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? Then why can't you accept the "thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants" of him committing war crimes? >I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion. I think war crimes are bad. There is no "fact" involved in that statement, it is purely a value judgment and therefore an opinion. Yet I think it is inarguably a better opinion than believing that war crimes are good. Would you disagree?
        bpt3 1y ago
        Because the definition of a war criminal is something who was convicted of a war crime, not being accused of committing them or observed doing something that could be considered one. You can't fact check opinions, no matter how morally superior they are to another one, so I don't know what your point is there.
        slg 1y ago
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    He ordered the actions of a number of people who were convicted of war crimes. He himself was never tried because he was already dead. Still, in that case, I think we can say that yes, he was.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. No, if he wasn't convicted, he is not a convict and a government grounded in the rule of law cannot treat him as a criminal. Conviction doesn't retroactively create the crime.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    No. But until then he is only an accused war criminal.

bpt3 1y ago

Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. You can argue that he should be, and I probably would agree with you, but an organization supposedly dedicated to unearthing biases in the media should not inject their opinions into their own reporting.

slg 1y ago
That is a silly standard. Hitler was never convicted of war crimes, would you object to someone calling him a war criminal?
- bpt3 1y ago
  I would say that an organization that needs to be highly objective should not call him one. They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.
  - slg 1y ago
    > They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him. How do you know this?
    - bpt3 1y ago
      Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion.
      - slg 1y ago
        >Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? Then why can't you accept the "thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants" of him committing war crimes? >I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion. I think war crimes are bad. There is no "fact" involved in that statement, it is purely a value judgment and therefore an opinion. Yet I think it is inarguably a better opinion than believing that war crimes are good. Would you disagree?
        bpt3 1y ago
        Because the definition of a war criminal is something who was convicted of a war crime, not being accused of committing them or observed doing something that could be considered one. You can't fact check opinions, no matter how morally superior they are to another one, so I don't know what your point is there.
        slg 1y ago
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  He ordered the actions of a number of people who were convicted of war crimes. He himself was never tried because he was already dead. Still, in that case, I think we can say that yes, he was.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. No, if he wasn't convicted, he is not a convict and a government grounded in the rule of law cannot treat him as a criminal. Conviction doesn't retroactively create the crime.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  No. But until then he is only an accused war criminal.