reuters, like the nyt, just imperial stenographers (both jewish-owned, incidentally)

Drone strikes and so-called ‘al-Qaeda Militants’
Matt Welch, Reason.com, Dec 27 2012

Foreignpolicy.com has a perfectly awful account of a US drone strike in Yemen this September that killed a dozen civilians. Begins like this:

SANAA, Yemen — The villagers who rushed to the road, cutting through rocky fields in central Yemen, found the dead strewn around a burning sport utility vehicle. The witnesses said the bodies were dusted with lour and sugar they were bringing home from market when the aircraft attacked. A torched woman clutched her daughter in a lifeless embrace. Four severed heads littered the pavement. Ahmed al-Sabooli, 22, a farmer whose parents and 10-year-old sister were among the dead, said: “The bodies were charred like coal. I could not recognize the faces. Then I recognized my mother, because she was still holding my sister in her lap. That is when I cried.”

What enables such state-sanctioned murder? One crucial ingredient is highlighted in the next paragraph:

Quoting unnamed Yemeni officials, local and international media initially described the victims of the Sep 2 airstrike in al-Bayda governorate as al-Qaeda militants.

Follow that link to the Sep 2 Reuters article, and you’ll see this loaded lead paragraph:

Five suspected militants linked to al-Qaeda were killed by a US drone attack on Sunday in central Yemen, in what appears to be stepped-up strikes by unmanned aircraft on Islamists.

Note that “suspected” only modifies “militants”; Reuters treated as fact that the charred bodies were “linked to al-Qaeda,” and part of a broader campaign against “Islamists” who don’t qualify as being “suspected.” This isn’t just linguistic nitpicking of journalese; this is how you midwife propaganda, straight from anonymous government sources, who have a huge incentive to legitimize targeted death-dealing against undesirables, and unadorned with the kind of protective skepticism that such ultimate power (let alone fog of war) so richly deserves.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to reuters, like the nyt, just imperial stenographers (both jewish-owned, incidentally)

  1. lafayettesennacherib says:

    IS the NYT Jewish owned? Do you know that definitively? I’ve seen a lot of cases for and against over the years, and I have to say the supporters of the view never offer unarguable evidence. I’ve seen it argued amongst other things that the ownership is a consortium of shareholders and shareholding groups – hard to locate where the power is… Just a few days ago, I read someone berating someone else for calling Sulzberger (how much does he own, and how do we know?) a jew; the berater said that the offender was well aware that Sulzberger had one jewish grandfather but was raised a protestant. And so on.

  2. niqnaq says:

    course they fuckin are. everything is,.

  3. niqnaq says:

    Before some pedant starts trying to tie me up in legalistic knots, let me explain why, in my view, everything is Jewish-owned, in principle, even if legally it appears not to be. It is because the so-called ‘leaders of the Jewish people’ possess an infinite amount of money. Everybody else possesses only the amount of money that the aforesaid ‘leaders of the Jewish people’ feel like lending to them. Thus hath ‘G-d’ ordained.

  4. lafayettesennacherib says:

    Actually, it seems to me that given the amount of money the Rothschilds had around WWI and the way we know banking works, and that we don’t believe they lost it all ‘somehow’ as Niall Ferguson dutifully reports, then not so much ‘the jews’ as ‘the Rothschilds’ must own everything and everyone.

  5. niqnaq says:

    don’t tell matthew rothschild, cos he’s a left wing journalist. and definitely don’t tell lihi rothschild, cos she’s an israeli ultra-left activist
    :-)

  6. lafayettesennacherib says:

    Well, ‘a’ Rothschild, or ‘some’ Rothschilds then.

  7. stevieb says:

    I recieved a life-time ban from ‘Reuters’ after I posted a comment questioning the logic of a calling American a ‘democracy’ given that Jewish representation(from 1-2% of overall population) is so high – and given that the vast majority of Americans aren’t Jewish…but I guess that was to be expected, really…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s