Today a news article with a rare note of optimism (just a note) amidst the ever-negative, pessimistic anti-war-on-terror media, which more often tend to favor news of horrible death and destruction—almost always that of innocents, preferably women and children —and always accompanied by multiple photos and endless video footage repeated over and over on TV, in the war on terror.
They relish in stories and images of failure and setbacks on the part of the effort led by America and President Bush in particular, against those who started the war and seek to destroy America and the west’s—our—way of life today. Liberals don’t necessarily support the cause—of the Americans. And so the media do not.
One news item in today’s papers (an Associated Press story in some Canwest Global papers) tells the story of a small victory for our troops against the terrorists in the war on terror—the one which Canada is partially engaged in. But the fact that they are engaged at all is against the wishes of the liberal-leftist pacifists and appeasers and anti-Americans and anti-George Bush automatons back home; the “against” part therefore being at the root of most of the mainstream media’s stories about this war, usually by way of innuendo but sometimes not. One sentence I alluded to the other day in a news story (in the Globe and Mail) about Canada’s part in the global war launched by Islamofascist terrorists was this: “…Canadian co-operation with President George W. Bush’s global war on terrorism…”. That unsubtle example is the quintessential sometimes not. And then they’d have us believe they’re fair and balanced and not at all anti-American or indeed anti-Bush, and that they’re on our side.
But this one paragraph stood out in today’s AP piece by reporter Murray Brewster, perhaps because despite it all, the Canadian troops are more optimistic than the terrorists:
The insurgents “are opportunistic, but we continue to evolve with new skills that are better than what the Taliban can throw at us,” said Brig.-Gen. David Fraser in an interview with The Canadian Press.
Well then. Darn the luck. “The insurgents are opportunistic”, but our troops are apparently optimistic. That demonstrates a high level of troop optimism and morale. That just ain’t liberal. What gives?
And look: no counter commentary by war expert and expert on everything-anti-American Jack Layton of the you’ve got to be kidding (but they aren’t kidding and the media’s on board) party. Nothing from two or three far-left Canadian university professors who are otherwise teaching our youth at one of the Canadian taxpayer-funded universities of leftist anti-American liberal fundamentalist learning. No, not this time. As I said, it’s an article that has rare notes.
We’re still a long way in this country from the media growing up and being responsible enough and being confident enough to report on successes in Iraq and the number of new schools opening every day there and the number of young Iraqi girls who are taking delight in the days’ lessons, which for example, these days, don’t include as lesson number one each day, “death to America” and “death to the infidel”; how to prepare yourself for a good rape by Saddam, his sons, or his faithful; and how to strap on that uncomfortable suicide vest. Their lack of confidence just shows that the media know only too well that Canadians aren’t on side with them—yet. So they think they must keep pushing that anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-war, negative side of the story —to the exclusion of the full truth. And so that’s not news reporting, that’s just attempted mind control, plain and simple.
The article continued with optimistic angles to the story—a story which, in full, is actually replete with optimism at every turn. You have to plug your ears to not hear the good news out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they do, for you. It should be commonplace to read stories with passages like this, but as we know it is not.
On the one hand, the hearty LAV III, which was peppered with machine-gun fire near Sangiser, bears witness to the ferocity of the fighting in and around that insurgent stronghold.
At the same time, the fact that the bullets simply ricochetted off the reinforced armour hull with no casualties was cause for optimism among troops, hardened by the deaths last weekend of four comrades.
“A soldier’s luck is a funny thing—sometimes you got, sometimes you don’t,” said Strickland, deputy commander of Canada’s battle group in southern Afghanistan.
[…] “We had a major contact, if I can put it that way,” said Strickland, who described a pitched battle with Canadian and Afghan forces trading fire with militants.
Three Afghan police officers were wounded—one of them seriously.
American Apache attack helicopters were called in, raking the compounds with 30-millimetre automatic machine-gun fire. […]
These are infinitesimal stories of success against terrorism. There are a lot more out there than you know—and that’s a story unto itself.
But it’s impossible to not notice an unmistakable yearning on the part of the reporter to return to the more comfortable negativity and tendentious anti America-winning-the-war reporting as he peppered the story with reminders of past Canadian death and injury —needlessly since they’ve already been covered ad nauseam.
· “The spike in action comes after a week of relative calm following the roadside bomb attack that killed four Canadian soldiers in the Gumbad region on April 22.”
· “…troops, hardened by the deaths last weekend of four comrades.”
· “The barren, dusty expanse … was the scene of a vicious firefight two weeks ago that killed Afghan police officers.”
· “On Good Friday, six Afghan police officers were killed in a battle at Sangiser. Four them may have died from friendly fire after American attack helicopters swooped down firing into the village.”
And as if to prove my point, he concludes the piece with what seems to me to be an effort to gratuitously cast serious doubt among readers about the motive of our troops or their honorable intentions—to cause readers to question the accuracy, the care, voracity, the morality, and therefore the altruistic nature of our good terrorist-killing Canadian troops and their noble mission. To wit:
“Despite the absence of bodies, I think it’s quite safe to assume there are dead (insurgents),” Strickland said.
“Our own estimate is between 15 and 20. There is no doubt in our mind these were Taliban. They were armed. They were manoeuvring against us, and when the platoon commander on the ground says it looks like these guys are setting up an ambush, it’s a pretty safe assumption.”
To be read as follows: So they’re not sure, but what the Hell, at least they’re killing people, which is all that wars are about.
Why end the piece on that note? Because when it comes to reporting on our troops winning the war, or even a battle—which the media must occasionally do so they can point to it and say they did; and so as not to appear to be completely and utterly complicit in the liberal-leftist movement against the war and against America and the west winning it—many in the media feel compelled to end on a note that causes concern and consternation and negativity among the readership, such that the mission itself is questioned. Not coincidentally, the Taliban and al-Qaeda wishes the same sentiment on Canadians and Americans.
The media rarely question the terrorists’ motives or sense of decency as much as our own, as the reporter did in that piece, leading me to question which side some in the media are actually on.
This web site stands firmly behind the war on terror and for freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else that terrorism takes root and where dictatorial tyrannies run rampant against innocent people and pose serious national security threats against western nations like Canada and the United States. We strongly support the American efforts as led by President Bush as well as the Australian and British and other national efforts to win the current war on global Islamofascist terror, and in the effort to secure America, Canada, the west in general and our way of life. We are solidly behind the brave troops fighting the war now, as well as the vast numbers of recent enrollees and those who are considering it today.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
