Other recent articles under: Empire as of Jul 17, 2010
Topic: Empire
Arrogant Press plays dumb on Afghan blowback
The tormenting arrogance of imperial war-makers is pernicious enough without the world's largest news media assisting them. by Dan Alba
(libertarian)
Saturday, July 17, 2010
On July 13, an Afghan soldier killed three British troops in Helmand province of Afghanistan, apparently in cold blood.
The same day, an AP report on the story called him a "turncoat," his act a "betrayal," and his motive "unclear."
On July 16, an AP report called his act a "crime" committed by a "hashish user."
Nothing unusual there. Had a revolutionary-era American agreed to fight alongside imperial British troops, only to later turn back against the Brits, he might have been called a turncoat who committed a criminal act of betrayal against the empire, and the imperial British press might have doubted his grievances and contrived something unbecoming of his personal habits.
He told The Associated Press that he turned on coalition soldiers because they killed "innocent people" and used search dogs too close to Afghan women, an indignity. [para. 2]
[H]e made final plans for his attack after he saw NATO forces kill a 5-year-old. [para. 17]
The man . . . said he acted alone and did not conduct the attack on behalf of the Taliban. [para. 19]
Asked why he attacked the British, the man said, "They were misbehaving with our sisters and mothers. They were killing innocent people — our brothers." [para. 21]
He also said that he felt he needed to do something that would ensure him a good life after death. [para. 22]
"I joined the ANA to serve my country, but then I saw them misbehaving," he said in an apparent reference to troops not showing customary signs of respect when dealing with women. [para. 24]
He said he plotted the attack after someone in a dream asked him: "Why aren't you doing jihad?" [para. 25]
Nevertheless, it remains "unclear" why an occupied Afghan would turn his gun on occupation troops.
Why? Because occupation troops said so:
A spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defense said, "Whilst we cannot comment on the legitimacy of this individual's claims to be the suspect responsible for this cowardly attack, it is ridiculous to suggest that we are engaged in suicide attacks or deliberately killing civilians.
"Insurgents and those who are against the coalition mission in Afghanistan routinely make false and exaggerated claims and so care must be taken not to accept their accounts at face value." [pars. 5,6]
The tormenting arrogance of imperial war-makers is pernicious enough without the world's largest news media assisting them.
But AP editors know exactly what they are doing: anything to marginalize or avoid discussion of the concept of blowback, the inevitable consequence of military occupation and aggressive war — anything short of pondering the morality and unconstitutionality and wisdom of an imperial foreign policy.
Seems an easy price to pay for "job security." For, without the presence of U.S. global empire involved in conflicts everywhere on earth, imperial news media would have to make do without a huge and irreplaceable portion of their workload.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Alba only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Alba is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
