The Moral Perversion of the New York Times and its Warmongering Propaganda

Wikileaks recently released over 90,000 secret documents reporting military operations in Afghanistan. A war that among intelligent circles is increasingly causing unrest and calls for what is a de facto imperial project is apparently still celebrated by some as a righteous war.

Enter Andrew Exum, who recently wrote an editorial in the NYT. Exum is an ex-US army officer who served in Afghanistan, including a “Special Operations” assassination squad. He takes offence to being characterized as part of a hit squad. Apparently, some believe that one charged with killing other human beings is more accurately referred to as a “special operative” rather than an assassin. Except “special operative” doesn’t actually mean anything. What is special? It applies to many things. Operative? Last I checked, a soldier was a soldier. It’s a clever euphemism designed to glamorize stealth murders, usually conducted in the dead of night using a ridiculous technological disparity between the killers and their targets.

But lets grant Exum the “special ops” moniker, if only to prove the moral cowardice of the people who try and shield themselves with it, rather than properly calling themselves what they are: soldiers, professional killers, pawns of corrupt rulers who wage wars of aggression for material gain.

In the article, Exum says he and his ilk hunted “terrorists”. Terrorists, by definition, attack civilian targets. Like the US, which has been exposed by Wikileaks to have done on hundreds, if not thousands of occasions in Afghanistan alone within the past nine years. Apparently Afghan insurgents are terrorists. Which is to say, if you defend yourself from the attack of a belligerent foreign occupier by killing its soldiers, you are a terrorist which effectively redefines what the term is understood by most to mean.

Next, Exum castigates Wikileaks for releasing the internal military documents. He apparently thinks government secrecy of the reality of a brutal war of aggression that taxpayers are funding is a good thing:

The documents do reveal some specific information about United States and NATO tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment that is sensitive, and will cause much consternation within the military. It may even result in some people dying. Thus the White House is right to voice its displeasure with WikiLeaks.

Funny how a leak of military reports may “result in some people dying.” The only common denominator of war is that it kills people. It is a stunning example of ignorance or willful blindness for a person to express outrage at the release of evidence of the mass killings of civilians to say that such a release may risk the lives of soldiers. Soldiers risk their lives for their country. They know the deal, and if they fear death or injury they shouldn’t sign up in the first place. The aren’t victims, and they shouldn’t be coddled and pitied as if the killing should only be done by them, and never come back at them in kind.

That said, I do sympathize with soldiers who are fighting unjust and unnecessary wars. The problem is, militaries are supposed to be defensive tools, not means of aggressive warmongering. To have someone attempt to undermine the revelation of mass civilian killings by saying doing so threatens soldiers lives is utterly repulsive. Here is a man who doesn’t bat an eye when thousands of civilians are murdered (indeed, he calls them “unavoidable”!), yet laments the risk of the safety of soldiers!

Exum then goes on to praise the MSM:

The news media have done a good job of showing the public that the Afghan war is a highly complex environment stretching beyond the borders of the fractured country.

Now, the praise of MSM in reporting on Afghanistan speaks for itself. If the media were doing such a great job, the Wikileaks documents wouldn’t need to be secret, now would they? The fact is, the MSM has failed miserably to report honestly and accurately on the most important of social issues: war, warmongering, its causes, its enablers and its devastating consequences. You never see pictures of disembodied civilians. You never see the “Oops, sorry!” mistakes that would never be heard were the murderers Muslim invaders waging total war on the US. And yet, Exum goes on to fellate the NYT for an article which proves the point of how badly the MSM has failed citizens.

Were the MSM only to misinform its readership, it could be seen as an honest mistake. But when the media actively becomes a propaganda machine- justifying and rationalizing a pure war of aggression which has killed more civilians than on 9/11- the media itself becomes the enemy. And we must fight back. It is sad when you hear otherwise intelligent people (including A-student graduate friends) attacking Wikileaks Julian Assange for presenting the truth and being an “activist” and these same people have no criticisms for the people waging these wars. When moral perversion becomes mainstream, the source of the rot must be found and eliminated. Most people who attack Wikileaks and meekly stand by as war claims more civilian lives are enablers of murder and oppression. When they also become its cheerleaders and attack dogs, a new level of depravity has been reached. Nazi Germany was stealth fascism. Germans didn’t want war or genocide. It was force fed to them after resistance became futile.

We are, based on the War on Terror Disobedient Muslims, on a path to fascism, and unlike the Germans, we are its enablers and supporters. The MSM is the main cause of this and lest we get to a point where millions die rather than thousands, we must resist this by any means necessary.

This entry was posted in International Relations, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Moral Perversion of the New York Times and its Warmongering Propaganda

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Moral Perversion of the New York Times and its Warmongering Propaganda | The Skeptical Humanist --

  2. Keith says:

    It appears some one dislikes Exum’s pseudo-intellectualism as much as I do. Good work. Exum is a warmongerer who hitched his wagon up to “counterinsurgency” and now that counterinsurgency is failing, he’s taken to arguing in the margins, not about the substance, of the wikileaks papers.

    I only hope he’s irrelevant soon.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s