Op 7 september jl. plaatste Anti-Media een artikel van Ben Norton, dat werd overgenomen van FAIR. In dit artikel plaatst Norton de berichtgeving van de reguliere westerse media over de oorlog in Jemen, naast wat er werkelijk gebeurde……
De vergelijking is stuitend: als de ‘Saoedische-coalitie’ verantwoordelijk is voor bombardementen waarbij burgers werden vermoord, althans als men dit al meldt, gebruikt men eufemistische termen voor het vermoorden van burgers, zoals die ook in ons land worden gebruikt…… U weet wel, er zijn slachtoffers te betreuren (zonder te vermelden of die mensen dood zijn, dan wel in het ziekenhuis liggen), of men spreekt over een onbekend aantal slachtoffers……
Een ‘mooie toevoeging’ aan de berichtgeving over de oorlog van de ‘Saoedische-coalitie’ (onder leiding van en met toestemming van de VS gevoerd) is ook het woord ‘zou of zouden’, dus: er zou bij die aanval een twintigtal mensen zijn omgekomen (waarbij dan het woord burgerslachtoffers vermijdt, alsof het om Houthi rebellen zou gaan…), daarmee geeft men ook aan een slag om de arm te houden, zelfs als dit bericht door een groot aantal mediaorganen wordt gemeld, waaraan zelfs foto en video materiaal werd toegevoegd………. M.a.w. zelfs als het zeker is dat e.e.a. is gebeurd, doet men net of het niet zeker is dat er mensen zijn ‘omgekomen…’ (lees: vermoord….)
Uiterst grof is het feit dat men bij tijd en wijle Jemenitische luchtbombardementen noemt, waarbij burgers werden gedood, terwijl de Houthi rebellen, die het grootste deel van Jemen in handen hebben, niet de beschikking hebben over een luchtmacht, of zelfs maar over één helikopter……..
Dan is er nog de hongersnood en de enorme cholera-uitbraak, die Jemen heeft getroffen, beiden de oorzaak van de Saoedische oorlog (zeg maar gerust: genocide) tegen het sjiitische deel van de Jemenitische bevolking…… Tot op heden heb ik nooit in de reguliere media gehoord of gelezen, dat Saoedi-Arabië de oorzaak van alle ellende is, zelfs niet tijdens de Nederlandse inzamelingsactie tegen de honger in Jemen eerder dit jaar…….. Overigens hoor je amper of niets over het aantal dodelijke slachtoffers t.g.v. honger en cholera in Jemen, terwijl dat er al vele duizenden, zo niet tienduizenden moeten zijn…….
‘Uiteraard’ is er al helemaal geen aandacht voor de rol van de VS en Groot-Brittannië in deze smerige oorlog, die niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets met een burgeroorlog te maken heeft…….. De Houthi’s hadden succes in hun strijd tegen Al Qaida en IS, een zaak die S-A flink dwarszat, vandaar dat de Saoedische dictatuur de zelf opgestapte president van Jemen, Al Hadi, onder druk hebben gezet zijn functie weer op te nemen, waarmee hij de Saoedische hulp kon inroepen, zodat men IS en Al Qaida kon ontzetten en tegelijk de sjiitische bevolking kon vermoorden…………
De VS en GB voorzien Saoedi-Arabië van straaljagers, helikopters, ander groot wapentuig, munitie (waaronder clusterbommen) en training. Waarbij de VS nu naast de Saoediërs, zelfs op Jemenitische grond oorlog voert, zogenaamd tegen Al Qaida……… Waarbij zoals u begrijpt vooral de posities van de Houthi rebellen het doelwit zijn….. Voorts helpt de VS Saoedi-Arabië bij haar blokkades van het door Houthi’s beheerd gebied, zodat humanitaire hulp maar mondjesmaat kan worden aangevoerd (als dat al lukt…..)
Here’s
How the Media Covers Up US/Saudi Guilt for Killing Thousands of
Civilians in Yemen
September
7, 2017 at 10:31 am
Written
by Ben
Norton
(FAIR) — A
coalition of Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom and
the United Arab Emirates, with minor support from several other
Middle Eastern nations, has relentlessly bombed Yemen since March
2015. This August, the coalition ramped up the ferocity of its
airstrikes, killing dozens of civilians.
On
August 23, the US/Saudi coalition bombed a hotel near Yemen’s
capital Sanaa, killing 41 people, 33 of whom—80 percent—were
civilians, according to the United Nations.
Then
on August 25, the coalition bombed homes in Sanaa, massacring a dozen
civilians, including eight members of the same family.
Major
Western media outlets have, however, obscured the responsibility
Saudi Arabia, and its US and European supporters, bear for launching
these airstrikes.
There
are no other parties presently bombing Yemen, so media cannot feign
ignorance as to who is responsible for the attacks. But reports on
the bloody US/Saudi coalition airstrikes were nonetheless rife with
ambiguous and downright misleading language.
“Dozens
of People Killed as Airstrike Hits Hotel Near Yemen’s Capital,”
wrote NPR (8/23/17),
in a masterwork of euphemism. Apparently dozens of Yemenis
mysteriously died of unknown causes at the exact moment a generic,
unaffiliated airstrike hit the hotel. NPR only
indirectly mentioned, in the story’s fifth paragraph, that the
“Saudi-led coalition” was “blamed” for the attack.
AFP‘s
news wire (8/23/17),
which was republished by Yahoo,
the Daily
Mail and Breitbart,
used the headline “Air Raids on Outskirts of Yemen Capital Kill ‘at
least 30,’” again obscuring who was responsible for those air
raids. France
24 (8/23/17)
ran the wire with the headline “Air Raids on Yemen Capital Kill
Dozens.”
The BBC (8/23/17)
wrote, “Yemen War: Air Strike on Hotel Outside Sanaa ‘Leaves 30
Dead.’” “Dozens Killed in Airstrike on Yemeni Hotel,”
the Guardian headline
(8/23/17)
read.
The
London-based Middle
East Eye (8/23/17)
was just as ambiguous, with “Yemen Air Attack Destroys Hotel,
Killing at Least 35 People,” as was Qatar-owned Al
Jazeera (8/23/17),
with “Air Raid in Yemen Kills at Least 35 people” and the
Turkish TRT
World (8/24/17),
which wrote, “At Least 60 people Killed in Airstrikes on Hotel in
Yemen.”
Whose
airstrike was it? What party was responsible? This remains unknown to
those who only glanced at the headlines—that is to say, to most
readers.
The
29-month war has killed thousands of Yemeni civilians, with tens of
thousands more injured and millions
facing famine.
And the United Nations has repeatedly reported that the US/Saudi
coalition is responsible for a majority of the civilian
casualties.
Even
when Saudi Arabia’s guilt is acknowledged by media, the crucial
role of the US is typically ignored
(FAIR.org, 8/31/15, 10/14/16, 2/27/17).
Readers miss out on crucial context that is needed to understand the
war, and their governments’ contributions to it: Saudi Arabia is
flying US-made planes, full of fuel provided by the US Air Force,
dropping US- and UK-made bombs, with intelligence and assistance from
American and British military officials.
Non-Yemeni
‘Yemeni Airstrikes’
Two
days later, reports were just as obfuscatory, and even used the term
“Yemeni airstrike,”
to refer to an airstrike that was carried out by non-Yemenis.
“Yemen
Airstrike Kills 12, Including Six Children:
Rescuers,” Reuters reported
on August
25.
This brief two-paragraph wire did not once mention the US/Saudi
coalition was responsible. “After
Yemeni Airstrike, Little Girl Is Family’s Only Survivor,” the
international news agency wrote the next day (8/26/17).
This Reuters piece
noted that the “Saudi-led coalition” was “blamed,” though
even that language seems designed to deflect; blamers can be wrong,
after all.
Major
newspapers were similarly misleading. “Young Yemeni Girl Is Sole
Survivor After Airstrike Topples Her Home,” the New
York Times (8/26/17)
reported. The lead provided no further information: “An airstrike
toppled their apartment building.” In fact, it was not until the
seventh paragraph, after three large photos, that the Times finally
conceded, “A Saudi Arabia–led coalition took responsibility for
the airstrike a day after the attack, citing a ‘technical
mistake.’” The Times did
not once mention American or British support for the coalition.
Al
Jazeera (8/25/17)
likewise used the headline “Children Among Dead in Latest Attack on
Yemen Civilians.” And TRT
World (8/26/17)
reported, “Yemen Airstrike Kills 12, Including Six Children.”
Even
when Saudi Arabia admitted responsibility for killing Yemeni
civilians, media watered down the language. “Saudi-Led Force Admits
Strike in Yemen’s Capital Hit Civilians,” Reuters (8/26/17)
headlined its news wire. Note the airstrike hit civilians,
not killed them.
The
attack was also reduced to a mere “mistake.” Larger context was
not provided: namely that more than one-third of US/Saudi coalition
airstrikes have hit
civilian areas,
and that there is a growing body of evidence that the coalition
has intentionally targeted
civilian infrastructure in
Yemen.
Not
all media were equally misleading; some were more forthright. AP‘s
news wire (8/23/17),
which was republished by the Chicago
Tribune,
New York Daily
News, Houston
Chronicle and San
Francisco Chronicle,
used a headline that told readers who was responsible for the deadly
attack: “Saudi-Led Airstrikes Hit Yemen Hotel, Killing at Least
41.” The Washington
Post was
similarly direct, with its reports “Saudi-Led Coalition Airstrike
Kills Dozens in Yemen Ahead of Major Rally” (8/23/17)
and “Saudi-Led Airstrikes Kill 14 Civilians in Yemen’s Capital”
(8/25/17).
The
Art of Obfuscation
To
justify this ambiguity in reporting, media might claim it is
sometimes not immediately clear who launched the airstrikes. But,
again, there are no other parties flying warplanes in Yemen.
Yemeni
Houthi-Saleh forces, who govern the north of the country and roughly
80 percent of the population, have not been bombing their country.
Moreover, the US/Saudi coalition has imposed an air blockade on the
impoverished country since March 2015 (another significant fact that
is rarely reported by corporate media).
In
Syria, where numerous rival countries have been launching airstrikes,
it is understandable that media may sometimes have to exercise
caution before apportioning blame. But this is not the case with
Yemen.
In
the 29-month war in Yemen, there is one party that has been
responsible for thousands of air raids: the Saudi air force, as part
of a coalition with the US, the UK and the UAE.
Yet
Yemen is not an isolated case of this ambiguity. Media frequently
obfuscate and downplay the culpability for bombing when the US and
its allies are responsible.
When
the US bombed a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in October 2015,
killing dozens of civilians, media scrambled to craft almost
laughable euphemisms. FAIR (10/5/15)
documented at the time how news outlets used circuitous
headlines like “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital.”
Also seen in the August
23 NPR report
cited above, this brand of misleading, ambiguous rhetoric is the
“officer-involved
shooting”
of war reporting.
On
the other hand, the responsibility of US enemies for killing
civilians is rarely if ever obscured.
It
is instructive to compare Western media coverage of Yemen to that of
Syria, where attacks are “Assad bombing” (Fox
News, 2/15/17),
“Assad airstrikes” (Breitbart, 4/28/16),
“Assad regime airstrikes” (Times
of Israel, 10/16/12;
Australian, 8/18/15),
“regime airstrikes” (NBC, 8/19/16)
or “regime bombing” (Daily
Caller, 8/17/15).
Media
have even written of a “pro-Assad drone” that was “displaying
hostile intent,” and thus just had to
be shot down by the US (Guardian, 6/20/17; Independent, 6/20/17; The
Hill, 6/20/17),
as if the robot were personally a fan of the Syrian leader.
The
phrases “Salman bombing,” “Salman airstrikes” or “Saudi
regime airstrikes” are, however, nowhere to be found in reports on
Yemen.
Downplaying
the Key US Role
Media
calling US/Saudi coalition attacks “Yemeni airstrikes” is at best
misleading, and at worst flat-out false. Yet this language also has a
political effect: It obscures the character of the war. This framing
is part of the “civil war” trope media have propagated for
two-and-a-half years.
When
Yemen is discussed, it is virtually always through the lens of a
“civil war.” As FAIR (7/25/17)
has detailed before, this exceedingly widespread myth, which has
permeated media discourse, denies the extent to which the conflict is
actually a foreign war on Yemen,
led by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their US and European sponsors.
Even
the term “Saudi-led” coalition is misleading. The New
York Times editorial
board (8/17/16)
acknowledged, in a little-noted editorial on Yemen, “Experts say
the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support.”
That
is to say, if the US wanted the war in Yemen to end, it would end
overnight. The “Saudi-led” coalition is only led by Saudi Arabia
in name.
Surprisingly,
in the midst of intensified coalition attacks, the New
York Times published
another rare editorial on Yemen on August
25.
In the piece, dramatically titled “The Slaughter of Children in
Yemen,” the editorial board forcefully warned of exactly what
critics have been saying for 29 months:
The
Saudi coalition—and its American enablers, who provide military
equipment, aerial refueling and targeting—simply cannot be allowed
to continue killing civilians and destroying what little is left of
Yemen. That is why it is imperative to publicly identify the
unconscionable slaughter of innocents for what it is, and to hope
that this will shame Saudi Arabia and its American backers to search
for a humane end to Yemen’s hell.
Reporters
at the Times and
elsewhere should heed this call to demonstrate journalistic
responsibility by clearly conveying their governments’
responsibility for the slaughter in Yemen—not just in editorials,
but in news articles, every time.
By Ben
Norton / Creative
Commons / FAIR.org / Report
a typo
Zie ook: ‘Jemen, de hel op aarde >> Saoedi-Arabië en de VS (plus hulp van GB) plegen een genocide‘
en: ‘Genocide op Houthi’s in Jemen: daders Saoedi-Arabië, de VS en de Arabische Emiraten………….‘
en: ‘Media Silent As Saudi Arabia Devastates Yemen Into Famine‘
en: ‘Jemen: elke 10 minuten sterft een kind onnodig >> verantwoordelijken: Saoedi-Arabië, de VS en GB‘
en: ‘Jemen en Saoedi-Arabië: leugens van de ‘onafhankelijke’ NOS voor ‘het goede doel……….’‘
en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië bombardeert begrafenis ceremonie in Jemen, VS ‘heroverweegt’ wapenleveranties………‘
en: ‘Witte Huis juristen waarschuwden Obama al in 2015 voor aanklachten wegens oorlogsmisdaden‘
en: (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling in ‘Dutch’): ‘U.S. and U.K. Continue to Participate in War Crimes, Targeting of Yemeni Civilians‘
en: ‘VS heeft reden gefabriceerd om de Houthi rebellen in Jemen te bombarderen…….‘
en: ‘Ali Al Shihabi: Saoedi-Arabie begaat geen oorlogsmisdaden in Jemen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
en: ‘Jemen 300.000 cholera patiënten en de valse berichtgeving door de westerse reguliere media…….‘
en: ‘BBC leugens, ofwel ‘fake news’ over de smerige oorlog tegen het volk van Jemen……‘
en: ‘Alan Johnston (BBC): de cholera uitbraak in Jemen is te danken aan de burgeroorlog…… AUW!!‘
en: ‘Jemen: EU moet wapenleveranties aan Saoedi-Arabië verbieden‘
en: ‘Koenders (PvdA) en wat hij liever niet wil dat u weet over Jemen, Saoedi-Arabië en de VS………..‘
en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië onderzoekt eigen oorlogsmisdaden in Jemen….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
en:
‘Koenders
eindelijk aan het werk! Saoedi-Arabië dreigt met economische
sancties, ofwel chantage!‘
