This amounts to an example of the principle that, when someone has committed themselves to lying, they tend to say the opposite of the truth. The Iranian response was more like the minimum needed to save face. There were no casualties; not a sign of accuracy. And that is all they had to go on at that point. As to getting through American defenses, these bases were hastily equipped to fight guerillas with IEDs. It seems improbable that there would have been some “iron dome” set up to shoot down incoming missiles.
And it is hard to see how the attack showed any growth in Iranian confidence. Everyone could see they were obliged to do something, or lose face.
Then I switched to RT—the Russian government propaganda channel. Just for comparison. Russia is supposedly an erstwhile ally of Iran; they have recently been conducting joint military exercises. And they have no free press.
Yet Russian Television told it straight.
That’s a pretty damning indictment of our mainstream media, and our taxpayer-funded network.
What can explain this?
There is an inevitable temptation in news to sensationalize. That could account for the talk of World War Three being imminent. But RT would have the same temptation. And that cannot explain the bit about the missiles being so accurate and getting through the US defenses.
It has to be anti-Americanism of an extreme, even unprincipled, sort.
No comments:
Post a Comment