Tue Jul 13th, 2010 at 08:02:58 PM EST
"Turncoat Afghan soldier kills 3 British troopers"
That's the AP headline on Yahoo news at the moment. Hard. to. take. sometimes. So he's not a turncoat when he fights and kills for the US/UK occupation and its Karzai puppet, who was allowed to steal the last national election, but he is a turncoat when he joins the fighting majority trying to kick out the foreigners occupying a country, his country, for the fun and profit of those foreigners' corporations and politicians?
But the UK Guardian gets it worse:
Renegade Afghan kills three British soldiers
[subhead:] Murder of troops inside Helmand patrol base deals severe blow to government's Afghanistan exit strategy
Okay, yeah, I get it, 'renegade', so you can get in this connotation from dictionary.com:
3. of or like a renegade; traitorous.
And murder? . . .
How deep into propaganda do you need to be to call 'the other guys' murderers and your own side heroes and warriors? I didn't think that degree of servile delusion had reached Britain's Guardian, but there it is.
And how do the killings deal a "severe blow to government's Afghanistan exit strategy"?
You mean the British government didn't know that a great percentage of the native troops the US and UK have hired want the patriotic resistance, I mean the Taliban, to win, and almost all are just trying to stay alive and collect paychecks (and weapons)? Doesn't this incident provide a boost, actually, to a real, almost sane exit strategy, which is based on the fact that things are going to hell, all plans to crush the resistance have failed, so it's time to just leave?
At least the New York Times tells it straight:
Afghan Soldier Kills 3 British Soldiers
No editorializing, just another three ugly and meaningless deaths.
How badly do we dislike that hard truth? Not nearly enough, from what I see of a listless and barely antiwar movement.