Bomber vs. Bomber

I've done this sort of east-west news comparison before, but unfortunately, we meet instances of the cheapness of non-western life over and over again.

The main headline on the Guardian web site is the Glasgow airport fire attack, which is the most recent of the string of "terror" events in the UK.

Now the UK, US airports, and also Ibiza (Ibiza?) are locked down because of the security threat.

Western media is also locked down with coverage of these incidents.

But, although apparently now the media is abuzz with indignation because the second car bomb in London was planned to target rescue workers from the first blast.

Other important topics include whether or not these attacks were planned in conjunction with Al-Queda or whether they were simply Al-Queda-like.

I would wonder about why these bombs were so luckily both found by "accident." Particularly when there was no warning of any threat at all. It sounds like a pretty good fear-drum to beat, especially for a new Prime Minister who might need some public support to further the goals of the party maintaining power. Is it too early for conspiracy theories?

Maybe not, especially because no one except for the bombers were hurt. Sounds like a perfect caper. Just remember, "the police are clear that the most important contribution that the public can make is to carry on reporting anything suspicious and to remain vigilant." That, and keep going shopping, but that goes without saying.

Oh yes, back to the point: no one except the bombers was hurt. For news in which everyone but the bombers was hurt, we'll have to go to the Other side of the world: Afghanistan.

At least on the Guardian web site, the second story was "'Up to 80 civilians dead' After US Airstrikes in Afghanistan." Wait, what? Oh, you hadn't been paying attention? Yeah, that puts the number of civilians killed in the last month by coalition forces in Afghanistan over 200, according to the UN. And, far more than the Taliban has killed.

The commander of Coalition forces in Afghanistan, Dan McNeill, seems to favor aerial bombardment rather than local peace deals as his strategy. Some call him "Bomber" McNeill as a result. I guess this strategy gets the maximum of "results" with few casualties if any for the coalition. Not to mention the fact that it is much more expensive, and expensive wars are good for the countries who supply the materiel.

So there you have it folks. On the home front, only bombers hurt, civilians now under surveillance. On the Other front, 200 civilians dead, bombers are just fine, and sending the bills back to the former, which, in case you forgot, is exactly the argument that led to the latter.


Terror bombing kills Zero, and 80. Media unsure of identity of terrorists, or good guys.

No comments: