Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Reaves
This reminds me of people protesting Iraq. They would have big signs with various countries leaders heads on them saying how they are murderers and criminals yet all the while I never saw one about Saddam or his kids.
|
Thats because they're not protesting Saddam. They're protesting the involvement of their own country in something they feel is immoral. You can't say that every war should only be judged by how evil the enemy is. Thats just too simplistic. Its like that old debate about patriotism. Some people think that patriotism is like being a soldier; just do what you're told and don't rock the boat cause its bad for the country. Others feel that its about criticism of the leadership to keep the good of the nation.
As for this thread's subject, I don't see the point. It reminds of when the military complained that the media wasn't covering the 'good side' of the war. Its all partisan interest. Naturally every biased party (and we're all of us biased) want to hear the things that we feel are significant mentioned more. We hear a criticism of our own side and we dismiss it. Its all perception. The complaint that so called al Quaeda attacks aren't covered enough seems fatuous. We're all of us aware of them and they get more coverage than our own atocities. A few weeks back there was a report that an American air strike killed 50 or 60 Afghans. Thats pretty big. Didn't last very long.
I don't think that the argument is valid really. The information is always available. If people can't dig ont he internet or the newspapers for the same car bombings every day then they deserve to be poorly informed. Don't blame the newspapers or the TV stations. As much as I think that Bill O'Reily is a mouth piece for some danergous thinking, the morons that buy that crap are the real problem.