Iraqi Capital Is Lit Up by Antiaircraft Fire and Large Blasts. American-led coalition forces began an intense bombing campaign in Iraq, blasting targets in Baghdad and at least two other cities, Pentagon officials said. By Patrick E. Tyler. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]
I am sick to my stomach!.
The severity of tonight's attack on Baghdad and the horrific images which sullied our television screens can surely do nothing other than fuel the anti-war campaign. Of course, this is not 'war' at all. War, I always thought, involved conflict between opposing forces, rather than the use of massive firepower by one side against an 'enemy' who is woefully defenceless. Tonight's images were disgustingly sickening, and the unleashing of such a disproportionate show of military might was totally reprehensible and reckless.
Mr Rumsfeld's remarks at the subsequent Pentagon briefing added insult to injury. The barely hidden tone of delight in his voice was disgusting, as was his interjection when the military spokesman finished his remarks and called for questions. Mr Rumsfeld's little speech about the precision of targeting and about the wonderful way in which coverage of the 'conflict' was being facilitated for the 'embedded media' (where do they come up with these phrases?) was insulting to any viewer's intelligence.
Of course, this evil man managed to casually drop into his earlier comments a gratuitous reference to 'the threat posed to the United States by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction'. What threat is this? If Iraq is such a threat, how come it hasn't been able to react to the military onslaught with anything greater than anti-aircraft batteries and a few scud missiles? Of course, the constant images of soldiers and TV reporters in Kuwait donning gas masks each time the raid sirens sound are such a blatant attempt to give the impression of an enemy who will resort to gas and chemical warfare as to be laughable. The amazing way in which news reports have managed to spin comments such as 'the missiles did not appear to carry chemical or biological warheads' so as to make them sound as if Saddam obviously has such weapons and is expected to use them is another sickening aspect of the so-called 'free' coverage.
And as for this much-used phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'! It's interesting, of course, that the operative word here is 'destruction', as if the greatest evil possible is an attack on property, real estate, infrastructure -- rather than the loss of life which is the real evil which would result from the use of such weapons. The other aspect here, naturally, is the sheer hypocrisy of criticising Saddam for having such weapons while at the same time raining down literal mass destruction on a defenceless city.
Tonight I witnessed a display of pure evil such I never imagined possible. How can an attack such as this be spun so as to make it seem a proper and appropriate thing to do? How can the MSNBC TV network seriously use the caption 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' as the tag-line for its coverage? 'US Might is Right' would surely be more appropriate.
9:52:21 PM 
|
|
