I find it especially droll when Americans add the emotional element to all their "objective" world views. In general, Europeans are much less biased in the sense that they do not use certain...erm...vocabulary to emphasize something beyond its scope...at or beyond the line separating fact and fiction.
Examples:
1."Hamas and Hizbollah are considered terrorist organizations."
Reasoning: because they defend themselves against the United States' precious, yet illegally established, Israel. Not once have these two organizations threatened to attack that which is not threatening them -- a significant aspect which sets them off from true terrorists such as al-Qaeda / the Taliban. But following on their logic, if either of the two said organizations are terrorists, then I implore they dub Israel as terrorists too.
In any case, why would the European Union refuse to classify them as such?
2. "The situation in Darfur is a genocide."
Due to lack of perspective (out of ignorance or sheer refusal), America has dubbed a civil strife in a Muslim nation like Sudan as a -- *gasp* -- genocide. Again, why hasn't the United Nations -- who hold direct ties with the situation and published several reports on them -- refused to adhere to America's terminology?
