I find this endless series of meaningless and incompetent non-news stories out of Libya to be fascination as to what they say about today's "journalist". Here is TODAY'S featured headline on AT&T/Yahoo, courtesy of the despicable Associated Press:
"Gadhafi forces stall Libyan fighters' advance"
Fr the full comic genius of this headline, and full incompetence, you need to read this blog's articles on Libya over the past 4 days--quoting absurd headline after abssurd headline, accurately reflecting the absudity of the stories themselves. Did d you know that there were any "Gadhafi forces" left as organized units? Could hae foooled me, from previoius AP stories, if I were so stupid as to believe an AP story. And what, exactly, is a "Libyan fighter". I assure you that the despicable AP has no idea. It just sounds good to them. Yesterday's headline (daily, meaaningless headlines here) was that "Libyan fighters" "inch forward" Is the situation any different today than yesterday,k except in a playful variation in the AP/AT&T/Yahoo headline? Of course not. And what happened to the "rebel" fighters" the AP was peviously talking about? And isn't it amusing that "Gadhafi forces" (implying an organized set of military units) are facing Libyan fighters" (implying a disorganized rabble)? Are not "Gdhafi forces" Libyan? The AP ties itself in knowts here trying to keep its agenda straight. To Hell with "news". The despicable AP is not interested in "news", or it would not keep puttin gout these hilarious stories.
Notice to whoever is in charge of the AP agenda pollice now: If the former rebels are now "Libya", maybe you should follow tghe lead of Reuters and call their "military" "Libyan forces". Why are you not doing that? Is it because it sounds too much like a civil war is still going on, or too much like the "Gadhafi forces" are now the INSURGENTS? And, by the way, why does the despicable AP pick the word "fighters? If ever there were suppsed military people with less appetite for actual fighting than these rebel fighters (using former AP terminology)), I have not seen them in my lifetime. Sure, they have "won", but only because a rEAL military (NATO) is backing them up every step of the way--really leading them every step of the way.
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment