Who is more disgusting—this slimeball who holds the entire southern region of his country captive? Or the useful idiots in the press that give him such favourable coverage?
I can't imagine the press fawning
over Adolph Hitler. For some reason, we never saw them portray George Wallace
in a favourable light. Why, then, do you think they feel so compelled to portray murderous thugs
like Nasrallah as "benefactors" of their enslaved domains?
Hassan Nasrallah isn't a hero. He's a cowardly scumbag who hides in a bunker
and puts his "followers" in the direct line of fire, between Israel and himself. He isn't popularly elected, either—he has used force, weaponry, and avarice to cow the entire population of southern Lebanon into submission.
And this is the idol
of the press?
Has the media lost their entire
connection with reality? Or are they actively working for
the bad guys? And, if so, why can't they just be honest
for a change, and admit it
I'll be rounding up more lionization beyond the fold, if you're interested. You'd recognize many of the photographers involved, if you were following along during the past summer's war.
Tags: mohammed azakir