Further reports that the US and UK are using napalm in Iraq. Despite the mainstream media ignoring these charges, eyewitnesses are increasingly coming forward. Last year's American assault on Fallujah remains the current target of these allegations.
Medialens has been pursuing the BBC over the broadcaster's failure to fully investigate. Read the report of April 18. Human Rights Watch charges that the BBC's claim of conducting "some investigations" into the napalm allegations is spurious. Credible evidence is emerging that demands investigation. Medialens has consistently proven that the BBC refuses to seriously challenge the Blair government, especially in their post Andrew Gilligan environment, though the problems existed way before Gilligan appeared on the scene.
How willing is our media to report on the use of napalm in Iraq? The deafening silence speaks for itself.
Medialens has been pursuing the BBC over the broadcaster's failure to fully investigate. Read the report of April 18. Human Rights Watch charges that the BBC's claim of conducting "some investigations" into the napalm allegations is spurious. Credible evidence is emerging that demands investigation. Medialens has consistently proven that the BBC refuses to seriously challenge the Blair government, especially in their post Andrew Gilligan environment, though the problems existed way before Gilligan appeared on the scene.
How willing is our media to report on the use of napalm in Iraq? The deafening silence speaks for itself.
4 Comments:
Could you just let us know where you stand on this whole insurgency question, i.e., what side are you on here? Whom do you want to win? This isn't about the napalm, but you seem so consistently critical of the Coalition here that I can only assume that you're barracking for the insurgency. Is that so? And if so, how do you feel about the incredible human rights violations they commit? Falujah, after all, was wrecked by the insurgency while they had control over it; would you prefer a Taliban-style theocracy or Ba'athist resurgence in preference to democracy?
Napalm strikes me as a poor choice of weapon, purely in terms of effectiveness. It's fine against concentrations of enemy in exposed areas, but in cities it would be limited in usefulness unless it was employed in co-ordination with high-order explosive.
And they wouldn't do that, as the evidence of their actions would be somewhat impossible to conceal.
The US army has already admitted to using napalm during the initial invasion of Iraq. It's on the record. Has it been used much since? Good question. I don't know, but major mainstream news orgs seem unwilling to investigate further.
As for what side I'm on (a typically Bush-like question: are you with us or against us?), I support Iraqi democracy, and the removal of US, UK and Aussie troops. The country could be run by the UN. Or by an international force, unlike now, which is basically the US.
The insurgency do indeed committ atrocities, though there is a fine line between fighting an occupation force and targeting civilians (very wrong, in my book.)
For example, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is a legitimate target of Palestinian resistance. Killing Israeli civilians is not. Likewise in Iraq. I do share the view of Pilger et al, in so far as I believe that Western armed forces are legitimate targets. DO NOT take this out of context. I do not want 'OUR' troops being killed, but the idea of a rapacious US on the march, with its tepid allies, concerns me. How would you feel if a foreign army invaded Australia, started privatising everything and finding ways to sell off Iraqi oil?
I'm suggesting that the occupying forces are legitimate targets FOR PEOPLE FIGHTING THE OCCUPATION. Yes, people will die, and I'm not talking civilians. This is a difficult situation, morally and ethically, but the occupation forces are illegally occupying a country. There are many other examples of this around the world...
Post a Comment
<< Home