<< OLLIE OLLIE OXYGEN FREE ~ MAIN ~ CRIMINALS ACTIVE >>

SOMETIMES A ROCKET IS JUST A ROCKET

An ABC headline:

Rocket kills 10 Afghan civilians

Thereafter follows this story: “At least 10 civilians were killed when rockets fired by the Taliban at a US-led military base in eastern Afghanistan fell short and landed on their homes, officials said.” But look at the ABC’s initial headline, noted by alert reader Kaboom and helpfully preserved by Google (and by the ABC itself):

US rocket kills 10 Afghan civilians

Question for the ABC: why was the weapon’s source not identified in the corrected headline?

Posted by Tim B. on 09/01/2007 at 03:21 PM
  1. Because, you reactionary fossil, if it’s not an American rocket, or a Secret Jew Rocket, it’s OBVIOUSLY scientifically impossible to determine where it came from!

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 09 01 at 03:43 PM • permalink

  2. Damn good question, sir.  I think we know the answer, but I’d like to hear it from your ABC.

    Posted by reese on 2007 09 01 at 03:54 PM • permalink

  3. #2: Perhaps we will hear it in the next edition of Monica Watch?

    Posted by Skeeter on 2007 09 01 at 04:02 PM • permalink

  4. “At least 10 civilians were killed when rockets fired by the Taliban at a US-led military base in eastern Afghanistan fell short and landed on their homes, officials said.”

    Taliban rockets, yes.

    But, don’t you see! The target was a US-led military base. It’s once again the evil American’s at fault.

    Posted by rinardman on 2007 09 01 at 04:08 PM • permalink

  5. Easy: UnServiceable rocket. But usually abbreviated U/S.

    Cheers

    Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 09 01 at 04:24 PM • permalink

  6. Wishful thinking on their part.

    Posted by Big Arnie on 2007 09 01 at 04:50 PM • permalink

  7. “because they’re on the other side” I believe is the answer.

    Posted by Zonc on 2007 09 01 at 04:55 PM • permalink

  8. It is a US rocket you morons. Wasn’t it aimed at a US base? It was a gift from the Taliban to the US. Last time I checked, the recipient of a gift is the owner!

    Sheez!

    Posted by ElectronPower on 2007 09 01 at 04:58 PM • permalink

  9. Let’s face it. Had the ABC picked up quicker that the rocket was not fired by US forces, then not only would the rocket have no nationality but the story would never have been reported at all.

    Stateless Rocket Kills Ten Afghan Civilians.

    Nope. Not something the ABC would run with.

    Posted by geoff on 2007 09 01 at 05:04 PM • permalink

  10. Like reese in #2, I’d like to hear the Ozzie ABC answer the question.  But since I expect nothing but crickets from those scoundrels, I’ll settle for what everyone else said.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 09 01 at 05:10 PM • permalink

  11. Remember the old argument regarding gun control - “Guns don’t kill people - people kill people”?

    The ABC is clearly now in favour of rocket control since rockets kill people, rather than people killing people.

    Next time our guys blat some Taliban, I look forward to a headline like “4 Steyrs, a Minimi, some 500kg bombs and a 20mm cannon kill 20 Taliban”

    Posted by mr creosote on 2007 09 01 at 05:17 PM • permalink

  12. ABC - All Bloody Cretins?

    Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 09 01 at 05:42 PM • permalink

  13. Mark Scott - missing in action.
    Stockholm Syndrome?

    Posted by blogstrop on 2007 09 01 at 05:53 PM • permalink

  14. If you peruse the ABC stories in Afghanistan, you’ll find one titled Diggers shoot Afghan driver.

    Another is Afghan children wounded by Aussie soldier.

    A fairly typical headline regarding the Taliban killing civilians is 17 civlians dead in Afghanistan blast. Note that the ‘17 civilians’ is encased in quotation marks, probably because the ABC believes it is base propaganda put out by NATO to discredit the Taliban.

    So this is pretty normal behaviour by the ABC - according to the ABC, all western military action has to be painted in the darkest possible terms.

    Posted by mr creosote on 2007 09 01 at 06:07 PM • permalink

  15. I see the U.S. Army telekinesis program is starting to pay off.

    Posted by Merlin on 2007 09 01 at 06:16 PM • permalink

  16. Man, journo-tards sure do get caught with their pants around their ankles a lot.  They must be tough to beat in a game of three-legged racing.

    Posted by Hucbald on 2007 09 01 at 06:21 PM • permalink

  17. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

    Normally the ABC would state that all of the murdered people were women and children.

    This is a marked improvement by our ABC.

    Congratulations Mark Scott, you are making a difference.

    Sarc off.

    Posted by gubbaboy on 2007 09 01 at 07:04 PM • permalink

  18. Can we work in a Red Cross Ambulance somewhere here - with reuters supplying the pics?

    Posted by surfmaster on 2007 09 01 at 07:09 PM • permalink

  19. O/T (or maybe not, it IS the ABC after all!)
    Insiders.
    Peter Garrett.

    Someone should wipe his chin, he’s dribbling shit again.

    ‘We will surveil the whaling by the Japanese, instead of the NGOs currently watching it will be the Government.’

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  20. “And their taking of Australian whales in the next whaling season.”

    yeah, right, sure, whatever.

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  21. #17, Normally the ABC would state that all of the murdered people were women and children.

    And show lingering shots of small shoes and damaged toys and dolls ...

    Posted by ann j on 2007 09 01 at 07:29 PM • permalink

  22. #3 it won’t be covered in MW, because it happened after their deadline (apparently the deadline is Monday 9:45 pm).  So it couldn’t get covered until the next week.  And then it won’t get covered because it is old news. 


    Unless of course it is judged to fit the agenda of the producer.

    Posted by entropy on 2007 09 01 at 07:37 PM • permalink

  23. Reckon Media Watch will hammer them for this one? Or will there be an analysis of statistics which ‘proves’ that if the US led base wasn’t there in the first place, the casulaties wouldn’t have been incurred.

    Oh, and I will wait patiently to see the ABC follow the TB investigation into this tragedy.

    Posted by Penguin on 2007 09 01 at 07:37 PM • permalink

  24. #19 Kae, so did anyone bother to ask baldy what the navy would do if they did observe some whales being killed?  Slap the captain with a soggy tuna?

    Posted by entropy on 2007 09 01 at 07:38 PM • permalink

  25. #18: Can we work in a Red Cross Ambulance somewhere here - with reuters supplying the pics?

    And don’t forget Flat Fatima. Where’s the picture of her shouldering the rocket that hit her house? Photoshoppers, get goin’!

    Posted by paco on 2007 09 01 at 07:39 PM • permalink

  26. #24
    Entropy
    Sorry, I lost interest and wandered off…
    I could look at the transcripts… however I think you’re right about the ‘what we’ll do about it’, he did only say that they’d be a-watchin’.
    So I suppose they’ll just watch.

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 07:41 PM • permalink

  27. Insiders transcript will be here in a few hours.Then a few hours later the video will be here.
    They interviewed bone-dome/slap-head in Tassie.

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 07:42 PM • permalink

  28. #26

    So I suppose they’ll just watch.

    And maybe do a few strong ‘tut-tuts’ when the Japanese whalers catch some whales.

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 07:44 PM • permalink

  29. Well if the Australian Navy were to board and capture Japanese whaling vessels on the high seas, or sink them by gunfire, for the heinous crime of taking whales, Australia would be at war with Japan, legally at any rate.  So slapping the capatain with a tuna might be the only thing to do.

    Oops, can’t use a tuna, because of the tuna fishermen killing dolphins.  What to do…what to do…?

    Posted by Michael Lonie on 2007 09 01 at 07:57 PM • permalink

  30. #23 #22 This is unlikely to be covered by media botch due, as they don’t cover anything which has a downside for the ROP.

    Something to do with presbyterians in the Media Botch research dept or something like that.

    Posted by Steve at the pub on 2007 09 01 at 08:18 PM • permalink

  31. How do these “carbon neutral” snake oil whores keep a straight face when peddling the spiel? Time to switch off.

    Posted by kae on 2007 09 01 at 08:18 PM • permalink

  32. See, it’s really quite simple.

    If the US base wasn’t there, the Taliban wouldn’t be firing rockets at it, would they?

    Therefore, the deaths of the Afghani civilians is entirely the fault of the Yanks.

    ‘nuff said….

    Posted by Kaboom on 2007 09 01 at 08:38 PM • permalink

  33. Hm. Secret Jew Rockets would make a great name for a band.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 09 01 at 08:52 PM • permalink

  34. A question for the ABC Online editors, via the feedback form.

    Clicking the link above will take you to a Google News aggregated results page. The result for the term ‘us rocket kills 10’ shows just one result, leading to an ABC News Online story from AFP. The story content related to a misjudged attack by terrorist forces in Afghanistan, where a rocket (alleged by AFP) from US forces struck a house and killed 10 civilians.
    The story had NOTHING to do with a United States military rocket weapon system, just that Taliban elements had successfully killed innocent Afghani’s in a botched attempt to attack US forces. Although even this could be construed to be an assumption, as there a range of coalition forces in the country, as well as Afghan National Police and Army elements that are in constant conflict with the Taliban as well.
    Another disgraceful display of ostensible bias by the ABC. It is noted that the original story headline has been changed to remove any implication of country of origin. Unfortunately for your online editors, unless you delete the entire archive, Google will cache the original story on it’s server, showing the history of another botched attempt to rewrite history.
    It would be usual to expect a correction, but as this is the ABC, no harm, no foul. Your usual readership would understand that US forces would “probably” do this kind of thing anyway, and it bespeaks a larger reality, even if the actual facts don’t reflect it.
    I’m once again so very pleased that my tax dollars are hard at work funding this drivel. Keep up your exemplary standards ABC, it’s a pleasure to read what I pay for. </sarcasm>

    I wait with bated breath for a response. The ABC editors may have to debate these points enmasse to clarify their positions.

    Posted by CB on 2007 09 01 at 09:00 PM • permalink

  35. The ABC’s manipulations are usually more subtle, but no less misleading and malicious.

    Posted by Brian on 2007 09 01 at 09:04 PM • permalink

  36. Why is the assumption made the rocket wasnt targeting civilians anyway? Its not as though the taliban have been shy about wholesale slaughters of them before.
    Shut the ABC, its a totally irrelevant organisation nowadays.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 09 01 at 09:42 PM • permalink

  37. If it wasn’t for the U.S. blame angle those civilian dead would have been completely ignored by the ABC. That’s the way it usually works. The innocent dead usually illicit a yawn from these so-called ‘bleeding-heart’ frauds, unless there is an American to blame, then it’s all anguish and outrage!!

    Posted by Brian on 2007 09 02 at 09:37 PM • permalink

  38. The start of APEC, or as the ABC want you to believe, Rudd’s latest conference group think to save the world.

    the bias here is incredible.  Where is the balanced quoting of Howard in response to the latest calls by the PM in waiting for Howard to leap at his beck and call.

    Bolt has more = abc radio is even worse.

    Posted by peter m on 2007 09 03 at 01:27 AM • permalink

  39. Youse are all never gonna know if no rockets come from us ‘cause me and me cousins always file the serial numbers off everyfin’ mate.

    We file the numbers off twenties and fifties out of ATMs. No boolshit mate, Ahmed even filed all the numbers off the sidewalls of the CRV last night, smokin’ it up on Canterbury Road.

    Fully sick, mate!

    Posted by splice on 2007 09 03 at 06:39 AM • permalink

  40. #38 - yes, peter. There are so many snide remarks about APEC that you have to wonder ...

    Posted by blogstrop on 2007 09 03 at 07:06 AM • permalink

  41. Any mention of this on Media Watch last night???

    Posted by Brian on 2007 09 03 at 08:12 PM • permalink

  42. Too late for their deadline will be the excuse.

    Plenty of time to talk about horse whisperers though ...

    Posted by peter m on 2007 09 03 at 08:19 PM • permalink

  43. #9 I think you will find it was a “rocket of no appearance”.

    Posted by Hump B Bare on 2007 09 05 at 01:36 AM • permalink

  44. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.