Sunday, October 14, 2007

In the News: Anxious Republicans, Castro and Chavez are Friends, and, oh, yes: Israel Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor

Yesterday, the New York Times broke the news that Israeli jets destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor. One that was under construction, at any rate. Some other news services picked it up, too. This is news: It's the second reactor that Israel has destroyed. The first one was Saddam Hussein's, back in 1981.

This afternoon, it's back to business as usual for top news items: The revelation of a super-top-secret raid destroying a nuclear reactor in a dubiously-responsible country apparently isn't as interesting as angsty Republicans and a car bombing in Iraq.

The New York Times article about the Israeli raid raised an interesting point. Syria was the only Arab country to criticise the raid.

Maybe Islamic states in the Middle East didn't want Syria to have nuclear warheads on its Scud missiles any more that Israel did. It must be irksome to be rescued by Jews. Again.

All the News We Want to Print?

I realize that news has to present a changing face, or people lose interest, but I'm impressed at how a car bomb killing nine people headed for worship at a Shiite mosque, tragic as it is, is more important than a top-secret raid that changed the strategic situation in the Middle East.

The old saying, "you can't see the forest for the trees" seems to apply here. Watching and reading what's on the news, it's easy to get the impression that the war on terror is nothing but an unending succession of car bombings and tragic civilian causalities.

Is it any wonder that so many people think that the U.S. freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein, and helping the new Iraqi government get itself organized is a bad idea? And, are less than enthusiastic about the war on terror in general?

More about the Israeli raid on Syria's nuclear reactor:


Brigid said...

"It must be irksome to be rescued by Jews. Again."

Ouch. XD

I do get the impression that the news media isn't as unbiased as they claim. Ah, for the old days when journalists were unabashedly opinionated.

Brian H. Gill said...

Yeah: I enjoyed reading "The Argus," that 1890s paper in Fargo, North Dakota, and "The Fargo Forum," when "A Staunch Republican Newspaper" was part of the banner.

Not because it was a Republican paper, but because it was an in-your-face, openly Republican paper.

I'd be happier with some contemporary publications, if they'd have something like "People's Daily Revolt / Dedicated to the Defeat of Warmongers" in the banner.

As far as this blog is concerned, I'm certainly biased: I'd just as soon keep breathing; and I like living in a place where I can do so while worshiping as I please.

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.