Saturday, July 21, 2007

A Coat of High Gloss

Continuing on from the point in the novel mentioned in a previous post I came across a much different scene in the book.

In this one the wounded Union soldiers have been evacuated to Mound City, IL where they are in a military hospital.

The scene revolves around a visit by a couple of U.S. Senators on a fact finding mission.

The first testimony they elicit is from a black soldier about the behavior of Confederates after the fall of Fort Pillow.

The soldier mentions the murder of unarmed black soldiers by Confederates but also mentions Confederate officers trying to halt the murder.

He is told in no uncertain terms that the visitors don't want to hear anything at all about Confederates trying to prevent butchery. The message is understood by the rest of the soldiers and no one else offers up testimony that mentions anyone attempting to stop the slaughter of unarmed men.

What this brings to mind for me is the way the mainstream media behaves today as opposed to how they behaved in times past.

Can you imagine winning WWII if the U.S. press had not mentioned German and Japanese atrocities? If they had played up or even invented atrocities committed by U.S. forces?

Can you imagine the result of the Civil War if Union atrocities were played up in the northern press and Confederate atrocities allowed to slide under the radar?

Today we have a media which completely ignores atrocities committed by Muslims, unless those Muslims are supposed allies of the U.S. "Palestinians" or Lebanese rockets landing in Israel is glossed over. Israel targeting true military targets are portrayed as war mongers.

No one in the U.S. has avoided hearing of Abu Gharaib. Yet how many mentions in the mainstream press exist about the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, many children, by the "insurgents"? Michael Yon is the lone voice in the wilderness telling the truth while tales of wholesale destruction and atrocity by U.S. forces or those aligned with them get reported ad nauseum.

The United States is being handicapped in the war against Islamic fascists by our own media and the Democrat party, their political allies.

I would have no issue with the mainstream media if it deal with atrocities from both sides equally. Instead the forces of the Muslim horde are given a free pass to murder, rape, loot, steal and shit in the living room while forces of Israel and the U.S. are humiliated, denigrated and sabotaged at every turn, even when they remember to say "please" and "thank you" when exchanging bullets with armed terrorists.

There is no fair and balanced view. Not on Fox. Not on PBS. Not on CNN.

And even if our side did lead the race to commit atrocities do you know what?

I don't care.

They are OUR side and I want them to WIN. Loosing isn't optional. It won't mean a small inconvenience, it will mean continued war against a people that seek to destroy and/or enslave my nation.

If we have to beat them by being nastier sons of bitches than the people we are fighting then so be it.

4 comments:

Ronald 'More-More' Moshki said...

The bottom question is: Are the Moose-sludge enemies, i.e. just about all of them, to be considered human?

If the answer is yes, we are finished.

Hyunchback said...

That's just the point that Turtledove was bringing to the fore in his novel.

Between the battle and slaughter there is a short-term truce between the Confederates left at Fort Pillow and some Union river vessels. The truce is allowed so the Union ships take the offered truce to bring the wounded prisoners on board. The Confederates had no use for prisoners who could not walk.

Turtledove shows the Union officers being all chummy with the Confederate officers during the truce, even sharing booze with them.

The Civil War was against people who were neighbors, brothers, fathers and sons.

We could practice cruelty on one another with such a close degree of kinship yet hesitate when we face an enemy that is so very different.

Our enemy is under no such handicap.

I do not agree that we are finished, however. I do expect that we may have to fight at home before we can truly fight our enemies abroad.

Ronald 'More-More' Moshki said...

The Moslem Horde has all the initiative. They are the small cat playing with a large, tired mouse.

There is no Civil War battlefield, no
German or Jap in a different colored uniform.

White America is on the ropes. We need Black America to stand with us but will it?

If It won't, our own immigration policies will turn us into greater Spain-Iran-Saudi Arabia-China very quickly.

Guess who won that little war in 1898.

Hyunchback said...

I don't see "white America" on the ropes.

I see Americans who are told they are evil for wanting to fight an enemy that presents a clear and present danger.

Just as those same Americans of all ethnic backgrounds were told they were evil for opposing legalizing criminal aliens.

The fight we face at home is not one of race or ethnicity. Names that pop up in the recent fight against legalizing criminal aliens include Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush and Edward Kennedy.

You can't tell the opposition from the ally by ethnicity, language or even political party affiliation. That's why I'm so strongly reminded of the U.S. Civil War.

On the world stage our enemies are somewhat clearer to see but we are prevented from acting against them as a nation by their allies here.

I am thinking of Saudi Arabia, exporter of wahabiism and oil. They birthed 15 of the 19 hijackers that struck on 9/11/01.

The percentage seems too high to be just coincidence. Rather it looks like what one would expect to emerge from a nation that teaches what Saudi Arabia teaches.

Since the schools that exist in Saudi Arabia are directly funded by the Saudi Royal family then I know of no other way to see it than that we should have declared war on that nation.

We did not because the Saudi Royal family is in bed and business with our own self-appointed royalty, both Republican and Democrat.

 

Free Wayne Webring

Home/Join | List | Next | Previous | Random

alt-webring.com