Artikkelen fortsetter slik: "At the height of World War 1, Britain's
Prime Minister David Lloyd George confided to CP Scott, editor of the
Manchester Guardian, "If people knew the truth, the war would be
stopped tomorrow. But they don't know and can't know." Little has
changed. Eight years ago, following the American - led attack on
Iraq, newspaper editorials in the West lauded "the miraculously few
causalities." In truth, up to a quarter of a million people were
killed or died in the immediate aftermath, many the very Kurdish and
Shi'a minorities President George Bush and his allies said they were
"protecting".
En artikkel i avisa The Sunday Independent, skrevet av redaktoeren
Darryl Accone, kommenteres tilsloeringen og eufemismene spesielt fra
USA's og NATO's side, brukt for aa rettferdiggjoere krigen og
bagatellisere konsekvensene. Han viser med eksempler hvordan
deltagerne i krigen leter etter emosjonelle synonymer og eufemismer
som stiller egne handlinger i et gunstig lys og som degraderer
motstanderen. "I quote much of (Nato Supreme Commander General
Wesley) Clark's "explanation" below because it demonstrates his - and
Nato's - utter contempt for civilian life and gives the lie to all
the bumph and gumph the Western media has sold its consumers about
the high-tech wonders of remote aerial warfare."
Det burde vaere unoedvendig aa tilfoye at ingen av dem som
kommenterer krigen stoetter Milosevic, eller som Accone skriver: "Let
me make clear that I do not side with Milosevic and his ethnic
destruction (ethnic cleansing is another euphemistic highscorer in
this scrabble), but I will not buy into the phoney war and cranked-up
language war propagated by Big Ears Bill and his slavering sidekick,
Noddy Blair."
Ogsaa utenfor Europa er Balkan-krigen blitt noe som kommenteres, og
det blir til en viss grad gjort mer uavhengig av den lojaliteten til
USA og NATO mange vestlige medier foeler.
Arnulf Kolstad