Explain To Me : Why Does M$N Call The "Egypt ion Revolt" .....

[remember2000forever]

"Protesters" and call the "Libyan's Revolt" "Rebels" ?

[TheWraith]

1. Probably because the Libyans are fighting.

The Egyptian army played referee and kept the violence there to a relative minimum. Not so in Libya.

[remember2000forever]

3. But don't you think it might also be a political word?

To maybe justfy the US "take" on this?

[TheWraith]

4. What exactly is the "US take" on this? nt

[remember2000forever]

6. Well,...maybe who are our so called friends..

and maybe who are so called soon to be "Unfriends"? It seems like Media semantics plays well with our Political "Bets" in the Region?

[leftstreet]

2. The ways of the M$M are curious

[WCGreen]

5. Jesus Christ....

White people find things and black folks Loot...

Is it any more clear why the American public is so fucking divided.

[JDPriestly]

7. Because the Libyan rebels have taken possession of parts of Libya

town by town, area by area. They have displaced the people in charge of towns in Libya, location by location. They are trying to take over control of the country from Gaddhafi. That is a rebellion. They started out as protestors and became rebels. They are now rebe.s

The Egyptians simply protested nonviolently without taking land, without taking possession of a town. They brought down the existing government through their protests. They never took over the government themselves. They didn't really even try. Therefore, they are protestors.

[remember2000forever]

9. Thanks for explaining. I guess I was thinking a more Political

Statement out of the American Media.

[MedleyMisty]

10. The Egyptians weren't bombed by their own air force

And mercenaries weren't brought in to shoot them down in the streets. The incredibly violent response from Gaddafi turned it into a fight.

"Rebels" could be taken to mean that they started the fight, that they were the ones to go violent. Remember, people who watch traditional media don't know nearly as much about reality as we do and they will just listen to a few minutes of news coverage. The words they hear in those few minutes help determine how they feel about the issue, and when they hear "rebels" they will think, oh, it's a civil war, it's a group of outlaws, probably radical Islamists or something, who are trying to take over the country from its rightful government.

Remember - we're talking about ignorant people who have been conditioned to react certain ways to certain words by decades of propaganda here.

Why not just call them Libyans? Like "The Libyan people took this town today in their effort to take their country back from its insane dictator, who is trying to kill all of them."

[remember2000forever]

11. Exactly!

[JDPriestly]

13. The Libyans started out as protestors, but when Gaddhafi started

killing they began a rebellion.

You have a point. Words have different meanings in the English language. And the words rebel and protestor can mean slightly different things.

I was just trying to explain what I suspect MSNBC's reasoning is.

[Baclava]

8. Mubarak took $100B from his protestors...Qaddafi only gets $30B from his rebels

It must be a money semantics thing, way over my head

[David__77]

12. Erm... "insurgents" would be most apt in some cases, "protesters" in others.

In some towns, there are protests, in other places, there is military conflict, which surely is not a "protest," but rather an attempt to seize power. I agree that the terminology should be as neutral as possible.

If things consolidate into a sort of stalemate, as is entirely possible, then there may be troops on multiple sides, and the terminological question may be murkier. In fact, the unity of a single Libya comes into question.