Posted on 10/12/2001 6:46:04 AM PDT by Dirk McQuickly
Listened to an NPR report this morning interviewing Kabul citizens -- NONE of them reported seeing ANY civilian casualties. Everyone they interviewed said they are in full support of US bombing, in spite of their vulnerability. They are terribly frightened, and some have no means of leaving, but would rather see the Taliban gone. One said she hated the Taliban for economic reasons -- they took over the best buldings and kicked out shop owners. They see the Taliban as a common enemy...
- Telit
BOOM
What are the two things the media seems to be obsessing over these days?
If your guess was our servicemen and women in Afghanistan and progress in the war against terrorism -- you guessed wrong.
Or if your guess was the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and progress in the FBI's investigation -- again, you guessed wrong.
Give up?
Answer: 1) The Taliban's wholly unsubstantiated -- and self-serving -- claims of civilian casualties and 2) MidEast anti-American protests.
Flick on the idiotic box, and you'll see what I mean.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's midday news conference yesterday illustrated the media's mindset perfectly.
The first question out of the box?
Ah, you guessed right this time: Alleged civilian casualties on the enemy side.
But..but, could it be that our media is "genuinely" "concerned" over "needless" loss of life, on either side, and are only striving to minimize it as much as possible by holding our leaders' feet to the fire?
Anyone who believes that, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.
Flash back to 1999, the April-June period. The so-called air war over Yugoslavia was in full swing.
Ostensibly, the goal of operation Allied Force was principly to shield Albanian Kosovars from Serbian-led ethnic cleansing.
In other words, protecting civilians.
Our national security was never at stake. Milosevic was not about to mount an armed invasion of Europe. Indeed, Serbia is, both geographically and geostrategically, a backwater country -- a threat to no one.
Operation Allied Force was hence fought purely on "humanitarian" grounds.
Yet, isn't it strange that, for some cynical reason, the media's current obsession with alleged civilian casualties was noticeably absent back then?
It's not like there weren't any.
Indeed, there were not tens, not hundreds but multiple thousands of civilian casualties from Clinton's air war -- many of them Kosovar Albanians themselves!
But, golly gee, I don't recall the media badgering "Commander-in-chief" Clinton over "collateral damage" with anywhere near the same ferocity and zeal with which it goes after the current Commander-in-Chief.
Moreover, here's another difference: The presstitutes derisively dismissed any and all claims by Milosevic -- especially allegations of civilian casualties, even in the face of hard evidence.
The charges were instantly branded as nothing more than Serbian propaganda.
Yet, these days, every claim, every allegation, every smear emanating from the Taliban -- no matter how ridiculous, no matter how absurd -- is received as gospel truth by the same duplicitious bunch.
Tomorrow, the Taliban could hold a news conference, accuse the U.S. of turning Afghanistan's water supply to wormwood, and you can bet our vaunted media would instantly swarm the Pentagon demanding an "explanation".
The key to unraveling the reasons behind this cynical double standard is to bear in mind that the media -- notwithstanding the infamy of Black September -- is just as partisan, just as political and just as one-sided liberal and cynical today as ever.
In that sense, they resemble our enemies.
It is patently absurd to suggest our military is deliberately targeting civilians in Afghanistan.
That's what terrorist do -- target civilians.
But so do "reporters".
No, not literally, of course -- but the press targets civilians via an arsenal of another sort: Lies -- lies about our military, lies about our goals, lies about our intentions, lies about our country.
The media's ultimate aim is to weaken America's resolve. Like our enemies, they use propaganda. Little wonder why our TV screens are filled with film footage (some of it most likely outdated) of dead Afghan civilians and fleeing refugees.
By poisoning the airwaves with a barrage of enemy propaganda, the media hopes to break our spirit, and turn Americans against the war -- just as they did two generations ago in Vietnam.
But it won't work this time.
The reason?
This: The press has conveniently forgotten this war did not begin on October 7th, but on September 11th, Black Tuesday.
But Americans have not forgotten. Nor will they ever. 6,000 dead American civilians will make sure of that.
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Personally, I listen to NPR for opposition research. It is always good to know your enemy so you know where they will strike next.
As the Queen of Liberal news reporting, NPR often leads the pack in the sort of anti-American drivel that the Left specializes in.
Close observation of the reporting of NPR takes often shows you the direction that the rest of the press lemmings will head.
Personally, I would love to see Bush appoint Murdoc as head of NPR to "reorganize" it to "put it on a good fiscal path".
Listening to the screams of pain from the left would be the most entretaining thing on TV
knews hound
Especialy if we start by saying we are not making war on Islam, instead of imploring Islam to reject submition to the resort of violence and desolation to spread their religion. In fact, our weak policies validate the the slaving of the muslim to secular concepts such as violence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.