Recently, a group of idiots attacked a bunch of people in Mumbai, India. They killed around 119 people, took others hostage and created a general mayhem. They targeted Americans and British folk but managed to kill, fairly exclusively, Indians.
The press has been almost unanimous in praising how organized they were. The Associated Press was typical in this regard.
"India has been shaken repeatedly by terror attacks blamed on Muslim militants in recent years, but most of those attacks have been coordinated bombings that struck random crowded places: markets, street corners, parks.
The Wednesday night attacks were far more sophisticated — and more brazen."
Sure, it was a drastic bit of performance art, but the critics have been too kind in their reviews. These guys were armed with AK-47s and grenades. In a matter of hours the terrorists murdered only 119 people, apparently hitting none or few of their intended targets and they all got caught or killed having accomplished nothing in particular.
One guy with an Uzi could have done better (way better) in five minutes. So what the hell is wrong with the media? Are they trying to make this better than it was so some officials can save face? Maybe so the story can run something like, "Well yes, it was a terrible thing that happened but these bad guys were just too organized and got the drop on us."
So here are three things that have to be done:
1. Mumbai has to go back to being called Bombay. Really, who knows from Mumbai?!
2. Death to the terrorists.
3. The media has to stop praising terrorists...particularly when it is not deserved.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment