Sunday, September 03, 2006

If Our Side Kills Them They Must Be Militants

I'm really sick of hearing how many "militants" are supposedly being killed by US, NATO, Israeli, coalition, and other allied armed forces. In the hourly news bulletin this afternoon NPR reported that 4 NATO soldiers were killed in Afghanistan along with two hundred miltants! Excuse me, but was there an independent source on the ground there to count the dead and notice if all of them were armed fighters or occupants of an armed bunker? Why is "our side's" word taken as fact when the past proves that "our side" often lies when it comes to killing lots of civilians. And why militant? Is someone militant when they are taking up arms to fight an army of invasion or occupation? Are Iraqi "militants" the same as Palestinian "militants"--or Afghan "militants" or Columbian "militants." I don't recall armed Israeli settlers or trigger happy Blackwater mercenaries being called "militants" (or for that matter the violence prone hawks in the Whitehouse or Pentagon!) NPR's use of the term reflects the simplistic "for us or against us" mentality of the entire "war on terror" as it's being run and it should find a more accurate term (armed fighter, armed supporter, guerilla, etc.) and use it only when they can confirm its veracity or qualify it as "alleged."

17 comments:

animal cracker said...

Yes, that's so irksomely true. I'm hoping too that sometime, someday, someone on NPR will say "the so-called War on Terror," the way Amy Goodman does.

Blue Gal said...

Someone pimped you at C&L tonight at the open thread. Glad to find you and look forward to future posts. Yer blogrolled. Keep the faith.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for pointing that out. That has been bugging me too.

Jolly Sapper said...

Common sense makes this young soldier feel alittle more hopeful about the way the world works

jack fulasofy said...

exactly

Anonymous said...

If our side kills them .... they're either militants or Canadians ;-) Friendly fire, indeed!

darrelplant said...

In addition to the 4 NATO soldiers (who I believe were Canadian) a US A-10 air strike killed another Canadian (and wounded 30 others) when ir mistakenly hit their camp in Afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/09/05/canadian-olympian-killed.html

Which raises two related questions to me about the "dead militants" issue.

If they can't even tell that they're shooting at Canadians, how do they know they're shooting at militants?

And if a strike where we know the number of dead and wounded has only one fatality (so far), how accurate can the count for the "other" side actually be?

Anonymous said...

YOU ARE A TRAITOR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
YOU DISTRUST US, AND YOU WANT TO COMFORT THE ENEMY BY CLAIMING THEY ARE INNOSENT. YOU SIR, ARE THE TRAITOR. I HOPE THAT SOMEDAY, YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF BEING CALLED A MILLITANT AFTER WE WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOUR SORRY TRAITOROUS BUTT.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jason said...

Good point regarding the use of "militant." It's another way to sanitize the slaying of people. "Militant" takes away individual identity and replaces it with a blank slate upon which to project everything that Anonymous, above, seems to fear. Nobody here wishes to "comfort the enemy." We just don't wish to be manipulated by speech that asserts that which hasn't really been established. Thanks for the chance to comment.

Patrick said...

Some NPR report examples with links to the podcasts would be useful here because it just reads like a rant without them. Is this just a rant?

Neil Russillo Mia. FL. said...

Someone counted all the so called casualties reported during the Vietnam war and the number turned out to be approximately 1/4 of the population of Vietnam at the time, wholly ridiculous number. Initially the US did not want to publish figures of enemy troops killed for that reason. I guess with no good news coming from Afghanistan and Irag they have started doing it again.
I too don't believe those numbers, either the Taliban are the worst shooting, soldiering fighters ever born or we are the best shots in the world. The reports usually start by saying allied forces came under fire and returned fire and we killed.....

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad there is an Anti-NPR blog up! I was a long time listener but after 9-11 it became readily apparent that this is FAR from liberal or left and far from fair and balanced. THANK YOU!!!

xoites said...

Not only did i hear NPR say what you posted but i almost changed lanes involuntarily when they said,"Nato forces have trapped 700 Taliban in an area of several hundred square miles."

Nato has some mighty big nets.

Asta said...

I love your blog! You took the words right out of my mouth. I am so tired of regular ole grandmas, toddlers and all other humans being called insurgents, militants, terrorists. Just because they aren't part of the American War On Terror?

Mytwords said...

Patrick comments that "it just reads like a rant without them. Is this just a rant?"

Sorry Patrick...sometimes I do rant! I try when time permits to quote from NPR reports and provide links to the story, its principals and to sources or sites that counter NPR's claims or bias--however (big caveat warning here) sometimes I just don't have the time I need to chase down the links, post them etc. And then I probably rant. I guess I think it's allright to vent or get emotional sometimes, but feel free to call me on it when I am just ranting...Thanks

mjs said...

Of course everyone our military shoots at is a militant...well, not at first, but after we shoot at them a lot of them take offense (a truly militant response if ever there was one!).

Keep up the good work. May the pompous, condescending, corporate shills and gasbags sink slowly in their own excrescence (or words to that effect).

++++