The New York Times finds Heroes in Tbilisi: in Baghdad, only Terrorists.

The New York Times ran a feature August 12, on Georgian civilians who've joined the fight against the Russian invasion of that former Soviet republic. The story, by Nicholas Kulish and Michael Schwirtz is full of empathy and heart.

Nika Kharadze and Giorgi Monasalidze went to war last week, the Times report begins... "even though they were not warriors."

It goes on to describe how the men's parents have been searching for them ever since. They've gone from hospital to hospital, to the local and International Red Cross. Mom and dad even asked the cellphone company to trace the last known location of their son's phone. No luck.

And then there's this line: as parts of the country fell before the Russian invaders, the Times writes, "it was not only the army that rose in its defense but also regular citizens." Resistance, we learn, was part of a tradition, inscribed in local history and culture going back to "medieval times."

[blip.tv ?posts_id=1174208&dest=-1]

To make the point, the writers describe a government employee, standing under a statue of Stalin in the city's main square with a rifle slung over his civilian clothes. The man is part of a group of a dozen locals who tell the reporter they're there to defend their town.

The story also describes displacement caused by bombing. "The planes came in and they started to bomb. The ground was covered with dead people, and there was nowhere to go," says Goderzi Zenashvili, 48. "The people that died, they died from their houses falling in on them, from the shrapnel and from concussions."

So now we know! The New York Times can do it when they want to. They can paint a picture of war that's hard to shake: heroic, hapless young men who take up arms to defend their homelands; moms and dads and lovers worried sick. The Times can explain how invading armies provoke righteous resistance. When they want to.

But they didn't - not when it was Baghdad instead of Tbilisi, and the statue Saddam's, not Stalin's. Then, local people in resistance were called dead enders, killers, terrorists. Because of course -- here's the difference: then the resisters were the enemy and the invaders were - are - us.

The F Word is a daily commentary by Laura Flanders on GRITtv. Watch GRITtv on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) or at GRITtv.org. And become a subscriber.

Follow Laura Flanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Gritlaura

Comments

[AveryMoore]

We live in a world where a penguin has been 'knighted' for distinguished service to Norway.

Still you gotta admire these guys who demand facts in an opinion column concerning an article which anyone can read.in the NY Times

This new penguin demands that we - you mean all of us, right? - accept that we

“..can presume that this entire post is based on a perception of what you think the Times' coverage was.”

Call me immodest but I'd say that was a pretty safe bet, sport.

In summation he leaves earth orbit -

“Until you find a quotation from the New York Times directtly describing Iraqi civilian fighters attacking American troops as terrorists, rather than militants, your article is a meaningless lie, the kind of sloppy prejudiced reporting--done by the NY Times and other media-- that got us into Iraq in the first place.”

Without a scintilla of PROOF or FACTS we now know that “ based on a perception” - this guy's - the NYT caused the Iraq war.

Awesome logic.

Somebody give this guy an earldom.

[liberalnfree]

People have to make a choice whether they are more interested in propaganda than journalistic standards. People have to decide if they want to follow the example of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and stuff inconvenient pieces of information down the memory hole. Pravda exercised a strict censorship of ideas and arguments, and they never cared about evidence.

[OverCoffee]

The poverty of comments here reflects the excellent brainwashing, fear, and Orwellian times we live in. None the less, you we painfully accurate about news coverage. Well said.

[liberalnfree]

Not a single quotation to demonstrate your point about coverage of Iraq? No research? So we can presume that this entire post is based on a perception of what you think the Times' coverage was.

Georgia has a democratically elected government. Iraq had a dictator. That doesn't make the invasion of Iraq the right thing to do, but it does change the moral equation, unless you don't care about democracy. But it is the actual activity of the fighters in question that changes the analysis directly. Are they targeting troops or civilians?

When did the Times use the word 'terrrorist' with regard to people fighting American troops, excluding quotations? Their preferred term is "militant.­" They often go overboard in the use of this term, as when on 4/27/05 they referred to "the capture of several associates of the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi­." Here, they are talking about the monster who led a terror campaign targeting Iraqi civilians. A common tactic was to drive cars filled with explosives into crowded markets, to blow up women and children. The Georgian civilians fighting the Russians have done nothing comparable to that.
Until you find a quotation from the New York Times directtly describing Iraqi civilian fighters attacking American troops as terrorists, rather than militants, your article is a meaningless lie, the kind of sloppy prejudiced reporting--done by the NY Times and other media-- that got us into Iraq in the first place.

[ZaneC]

Well said! I hope more people will realize the hypocrisy of our coverage of this war when compared to our own against Iraq and Afghanistan.

[MagisterLudi]

Saakashvili runs for cover. Funny. This guy can run!
Faux News announced that Saak was "under fire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1yewjpmTdg

[darker]

Oh yes, it's OK for Georgians to defend their city against Russians.
BUT...
It's NOT OK for Iraqis to defend their city agains Americans.

That sure makes "sense".
N-O-T.