11 comments for “Where Was Journalism on US Airstrikes During ‘War on Terror?’

  1. robert e williamson jr
    September 22, 2021 at 09:47

    I recommend everyone think back to the picture of the vehicle hit by the missile in this instance. The media could not wait to get it out, more red meat for the millions watching.

    But wait!

    Seemed very obvious to me something was very odd there. The military says they had reports this vehicle with a rocket launcher had been reported (heading for the airport ?) and they feared an attack so they lit it up.

    If that vehicle had been carrying a loaded rocket launcher when it was hit those tubes would not have still been in that vehicle in ordered arrangement the photo showed. The early reports clearly state that a secondary explosion was detected. Hog spit!

    This entire story is BS. I suspect that had those tubes been loaded with rockets, the normal when moving to attack, when the missile hit that vehicle little would have remained of it. Rocket launching tubes would have been scattered everywhere and likely they would have been unrecognizable.

    Never made any sense then and now we know why, it was all a lie.

    Murder comes to mind , the cold blooded killing of innocents for photo ops. And for what, so some cowboy joy stick manipulator could get a patch for his uniform.

    Please Joe tell me it isn’t so!

  2. Zhu
    September 22, 2021 at 06:33

    “Life is cheap in Asia” — Genl. Westmoreland

  3. Nathan Mulcahy
    September 21, 2021 at 09:29

    One of the enduring mysteries I cannot solve is why people get their information from the legacy media that has a stellar track record of lying.

  4. rosemerry
    September 20, 2021 at 17:12

    Rand Paul asked Blinken (top diplomat) if the man killed was an aid worker or a terrorist, and mused that surely that should have been known before the bomb was used, not “after an investigation of the incident”. Such unfeeling arrogance by the Biden mob.

  5. Dave
    September 20, 2021 at 16:01

    Ms. Johnstone,
    In future please use the term “attack” instead of the sophomoric word “strike”, as in drone strike, missile strike, airstrike, and the rest of the “strike” euphemisms our fascist-oriented, corporate media use to sanitize their interpretation of undeniably violent actions. It is semantically illogical to characterize blatantly violent USA / UK / Aussie actions as “strikes” while reserving the word “attack” to the actions of our alleged and often media-concocted and media-defined enemies. I first brought this semantic anomaly to the attention of the press / media at least fifteen years ago. Didn’t seem to do much good, however.

    • Nathan Mulcahy
      September 21, 2021 at 09:26

      Strike, attack, assassination? The last one is the most appropriate.

      We assassinate innocent people all over the world to enhance our career and to secure our lifestyle.

    • Neville
      September 22, 2021 at 00:14

      I regretfully advise another euphemism, new to me at least, in South Australia’s only statewide newspaper “The Advertiser” today 22 September in article page 23 “Drone and dusted” !

      “US forces conducted a kinetic counter terrorism strike near Idlib , Syria”.

      “The Advertiser” is a Murdoch owned, paywalled, paper.

  6. Me Myself
    September 20, 2021 at 15:26

    Just for a moment suppose the intelligence was accurate and children were deliberate targets.

    Wouldn’t that serve as an expletive to “enemy” Kinda like, See You Around Boys?

    I hate to think so.

    I don’t think the military is that inept!

  7. jdd
    September 20, 2021 at 14:08

    “Imagine if this had been a Russian airstrike.” Excellent point, well taken. The incriminations would never end.

    • Eddie S
      September 21, 2021 at 23:53

      Yes, and of course it would serve as an example of how ruthless and unfeeling those ‘Roosskies’ are, and as yet another indictment of their entire form of government. But when WE do it, it’s normally casually explained away as a sad but understandable mistake—the only UNUSUAL thing about this particular instance is that the media picked-up on it in a critical manner. But as Caitlin and others have suggested, it’s because it serves some minor domestic political purpose, not because they ‘got religion’ and are trying to present an ethical world-view.

      I have to admit that I first gave-up taking the MSM seriously during the Vietnam War(crime), and that reporting looks positively progressive in comparison to today’s media. Then I happened to catch some coverage of the US bombing of Kosovo in the 90’s, but had to turn it off (more or less permanently, as it turns out) when the US national news was complaining that a couple of US pilots who were captured were being put in front of TV cameras in violation of the Geneva Conventions!?! The proverbial cognitive dissonance (ie; concern for the bombers vs the ‘bombees’ who were underneath the falling bombs) and hypocrisy was too much for me, and I really realized that the US MSM couldn’t even do a passable job of PRETENDING to be even-handed (ie; like the Brits do).

  8. renate
    September 20, 2021 at 13:31

    The people in charge knew instantly of two explosions but nothing of any civilians killed in the attack.
    After a hellfire missile hits is there any time for another explosion, least of all a second while the ten people were killed instantly.

Comments are closed.