Red Star: foggy glasses

Sometimes the Red Star comes close to seeing the world as it really is, such as in today's editorial "Bombs/The terrorist threat goes global". But they just can't seem to put all the pieces together, and they also can't resist a shot at the Bush administration (Recall that the Strib has long ago given up any pretense of objectivity - they are committed leftists, and proud of it). They get this part right:

"It's not Al-Qaida against whom we struggle, in the main. It's a larger, more diffuse and thus more difficult enemy: radical Islam."

Then they list recent terror targets, albiet with a glaring omission:

"The list grows: New York and Washington, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid, Taba, London, Sharm el-Sheik. This is not to mention the dozens of attacks daily in occupied Iraq."

How about Isreal? Think they've seen any terrorist attacks? Do the Palestinian homicide bombers qualify as radical Islamists? Rambix believes those that choose to blow themselves and women and children up are automatically members of the club. But no mention by the Red Star.

"Why is it in the United States that deaths by terrorism in London so transfix us while deaths in Sharm el-Sheik or Baghdad are recorded but not tarried over? The difference in reaction should inform us about human nature, and allow us to understand other perspectives. Life isn't cheap for any culture, but loss of life is more comprehensible, more immediate, if it is from within our own culture -- no less for others than for those from the West."

The Red Star editors can't see the forest for the trees. We are transfixed by the Sharm el-Sheik and Baghdad terror; it's not us reporting it, it's you, Red Star, the main stream media!

More from the Red Star:

"Cleaning up Afghanistan's Al-Qaida training grounds made sense. But continually mobilizing armies does not help, and in the invasion of Iraq, it only hurt, by creating so many more potential bombers."

Fuzzy thinking and willful ignorance of the facts. We cleaned up terror camps in Iraq; why is that a good thing in Afghanistan, but not important in Iraq? And the hapless editors still don't understand the concept of taking the war to the enemy? What would Al-Zarquawi and his minions be doing if we didn't invade? They'd be plotting terror on America's soil. Again.