What is this? Humor? Satire? It can't be meant seriously, can it?
"The New York Times yesterday conveyed important and exciting evidence of American progress in Afghanistan which I believe we can and should all find inspiring; it concerns the reasons the protests in Afghanistan over the slaughter of 16 villagers by a U.S. soldier were not as intense as feared:
Many observers say, the Americans have had a lot of practice at apologizing for carnage, accidental and otherwise, and have gotten better at doing it quickly and convincingly.
I don’t mind admitting that I beamed with nationalistic pride when I learned of our country’s impressive evolution: our nation’s government is so practiced in “apologizing for carnage” that it’s becoming a perfected art. This pride become particularly bountiful when I heard NPR’s Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep yesterday talk to The Washington Post‘s Rajiv Chandrasekaran about the same topic and I learned how much worse the Afghans are by comparison (h/t dubo6254). First, Chandrasekaran observed that the level of anger in Afghanistan over their dead civilians isn’t nearly as intense and widespread as it is among Americans:
Continue reading http://www.salon.com/2012/03/16/npr_and_nyt_on_americans_v_afghans/
Satire. When you read down through the piece you will see the author is blasting the fact that Americans seemingly don't give a damn over the huge number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. I agree with the author, Americans; and of course there are exceptions, don't really care how many civilians are killed by US actions around the world. They don't care how many little girls and boys are blown up by drones, or US helicopters, as long as their have their cozy little life. The president of the US stood in front of the nation and more or less said he does not care.
AntwortenLöschenThanks for explaining that Secretcorners .... I read it twice and did not get that either ( and English is my mother tongue )
AntwortenLöschenIt is a good piece, thanks for bringing to my attention.
AntwortenLöschenYou're welcome! :)
AntwortenLöschenI don't believe this is satire. I read the link in the article back to the NYT article ["important...evidence"]. It pretty much says the same thing in the Times. It does state that the Afgans have held back and not protested these killings for the reasons stated stated. The link is worth a look.
AntwortenLöschenIt's utter, absolute and complete satire.
AntwortenLöschenFrom the NPR interview cited in the link:
AntwortenLöschenINSKEEP: Rajiv, you were noticing that the response to this in Afghanistan has been a little bit less than with the Quran burnings, say, in which no one was killed.
CHANDRASEKARAN: Yes. At least in the first few days, the level of protests have been far lower over there than there have been in the immediate wake of that. And it poses an interesting question. Obviously, over at home here in the United States I think people's sense of revulsion at this act, the shooting, has been far greater.
And you're wondering why aren't we seeing that same sort of reaction in the streets of Kabul, for instance. And I think, you know, there're a number of reactions to this on the part of Afghans. But I think on one level they've become desensitized to 30 years of violence. This fits into a narrative for them of continued night raids. Even though this wasn't an authorized mission by any sense of the imagination, I think for many of them, they've become accustomed to news of Afghan civilians dying at the hands of American forces in the middle of the night. And I think what we often don't get back here is that respect for religion and honor, in some cases in a country that's been scarred by 30 years of war actually hits much closer to the heart than unfortunately killings.
I like Salon.com
AntwortenLöschenPossibly the big difference between the Koran burnings and the killing of villagers is the fact that compensation (or as they call it blood money) will be paid out.
AntwortenLöschen