Fleeing Family Ends Up in Path of Israeli Missile
The title of the NY Times story tells you nearly everything you might wish to know about the nature of that paper’s coverage of the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.
The reporter, Hassan M. Fattah, is not responsible for the headline. Like yesterday's lengthier report, this is a detailed picture of the mayhem visited upon the Lebanese. It is a straight-forward account of the attempts by several Lebanese families to flee the fighting, and how they were hunted down by Israeli aircraft as they fled along rural roads. The families' cars were blown up.
We've already heard about such incidents from many sources, and learned that even ambulances have been targeted.
What we had not heard, until the NY Times headline writer thought to tell us, was that (one of) these cars "ended up in [the] path of [an] Israeli Missile". I'm disappointed that the headline writer neglected to explain how this occured. But, evidently, this car, whichever one it was, drove between the attack helicopter and the intended target...perhaps a guard rail, or a stop sign? Or just a loose bit of the macadam?
Curious, too, that the headline writer does not care to tell us which of the cars carrying civilians, whose destruction Hassan M. Fattah describes, was the one which "end[ed] up in [the] path of [an] Israeli Missile". If the headline writer had spoken of "Missiles", then we might infer it is the fate of Any-Car in Lebanon to wander into the firing line of Israeli gunships.
But that pesky singular, "Missile"...what to make of it? It does seem that the writer is signalling a willingness to concede that the other passenger cars were blown up intentionally by the Israeli attackers.
The important thing I suppose, which the headline writer has thoughtfully underscored for us, is that one of the cars carrying fleeing civilians was blown up inadvertently.
That makes the other war crimes described in the article rather less distressing, don't you think?
Fleeing Family Ends Up in Path of Israeli Missile
The reporter, Hassan M. Fattah, is not responsible for the headline. Like yesterday's lengthier report, this is a detailed picture of the mayhem visited upon the Lebanese. It is a straight-forward account of the attempts by several Lebanese families to flee the fighting, and how they were hunted down by Israeli aircraft as they fled along rural roads. The families' cars were blown up.
We've already heard about such incidents from many sources, and learned that even ambulances have been targeted.
What we had not heard, until the NY Times headline writer thought to tell us, was that (one of) these cars "ended up in [the] path of [an] Israeli Missile". I'm disappointed that the headline writer neglected to explain how this occured. But, evidently, this car, whichever one it was, drove between the attack helicopter and the intended target...perhaps a guard rail, or a stop sign? Or just a loose bit of the macadam?
Curious, too, that the headline writer does not care to tell us which of the cars carrying civilians, whose destruction Hassan M. Fattah describes, was the one which "end[ed] up in [the] path of [an] Israeli Missile". If the headline writer had spoken of "Missiles", then we might infer it is the fate of Any-Car in Lebanon to wander into the firing line of Israeli gunships.
But that pesky singular, "Missile"...what to make of it? It does seem that the writer is signalling a willingness to concede that the other passenger cars were blown up intentionally by the Israeli attackers.
The important thing I suppose, which the headline writer has thoughtfully underscored for us, is that one of the cars carrying fleeing civilians was blown up inadvertently.
That makes the other war crimes described in the article rather less distressing, don't you think?
posted by : smintheus :: at
11:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home